Skip to main content

Full text of "Wiltshire archaeological and natural history magazine"

See other formats 


WILTSHIRE 
“STUDIES 


The Wiltshire [Neat tcelorater! 
and Natural History Magazine 


Volume 96 2003 


CAI 


The Wiltshire Archaeological : 


and Natural History Magazine 
Volume 96 
2003 


Published by 

The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 
41 Long Street, 

Devizes, Wilts. SN10 INS 

Telephone 01380 727369 

Fax 01380 722150 

email wanhs@wiltshireheritage.org.uk 


Founded 1853 
Company No. 3885649 
Registered with Charity Commission No. 1080096 


~ VAT No. 140 2791 91 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 
VOLUME 96 (2003) 


ISSN 0262 6608 
© Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society and authors 2003 


Hon. Editors: Joshua Pollard, BA, PhD, and John Chandler BA, PhD. 
Hon. Local History Editor: James Thomas, BA, PhD, FRHistS. 

Hon. Natural History Editor: Michael Darby, PhD, FRES 

Hon. Reviews Editor: Michael Marshman, ALA. 

Editorial Assistant: Lorna Haycock, BA, PhD, Dip.ELH, Cert Ed. 


We acknowledge with thanks publication grants for this volume from the following bodies: Department of 
Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum (Venner-Gren Fund), for ‘Beaker Presence at Wilsford 7’, by Humphrey 
Case; English Heritage, for the colour pages supporting ‘From Pit Circles to Propellers: Recent Results 
from Aerial Survey in Wiltshire’, by Martyn Barber, Damian Grady and Helen Winton; Salisbury District 
Council, for ‘Neolithic Pits at the Beehive’, by Michael Heaton; Messrs Morrows (on behalf of a client), for 
‘AWiltshire ‘Bog Body’?: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth Century AD Burial in the Woodford Valley’, by Jacqueline 
I. McKinley; and to the Marion Browne Legacy, for a contribution towards the publishing costs of the 
natural history articles included in this volume. 


The journals issued to volume 69 as parts of The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 
(Part A Natural History; Part B Archaeology and Local History) were from volumes 70 to 75 published 
under separate titles as The Wiltshire Natural History Magazine and The Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. 
With volume 76 the magazine reverted to its combined form and title. The cover title “Wiltshire Heritage 
Studies’ (volume 93) and ‘Wiltshire Studies’ (volume 94 onwards) should not be used in citations. The title 
of the journal, The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, remains unchanged. 


All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted 
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the 
prior permission of the Society and authors. 


Typeset in Plantin by John Chandler 

and produced for the Society by 

Avonset, 11 Kelso Place, Upper Bristol Road, Bath BA1 3AU 
Printed in Great Britain 


Contents 


Frederick Kenneth Annable — ‘Ken’ — BA, FSA, FMA, 1922-2002: a Memoir, by Nicholas 
Thomas (Curator 1952-1957) 


A Wiltshire ‘Bog Body’?: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth Century AD Burial in the Woodford 
Valley, by Jacqueline I. McKinley 


The Eyes and Ears of the Lord: Seventeenth-Century Manorial Stewards in South Wiltshire, 
by J.H. Bettey 


Excavation of Roman Features and Deposits on the Outskirts of Cunetio (Mildenhall), 
Marlborough, in 1997, by Nicholas Cooke, with contributions by Moira Laidlaw and 
Jacqueline I. McKinley 

Etruscan and Other Figurines from Avebury and Nearby, by Paul Robinson 


The Trees of Savernake Forest, by Jack Oliver 


Islam in East Knoyle: George Aitchison and the National School 1870-1873, by Elisabeth 
Darby 


Neolithic Pits at the Beehive, by Michael Heaton, with contributions by Mark Corney, 
Sheila Hamiton-Dyer, Peter Bellamy, Peter Higgins and Ros Cleal 


Dragonflies in Wiltshire - Odonata recording past, present and future, by Steve Covey 
The Chantry of the Holy Trinity at Hungerford, by Norman Hidden 

Malmesbury Abbey and Late Saxon Parochial Development in Wiltshire, by Jonathan Pitt 
The Wiltshire Natural History Forum 1974-2002, by Michael Darby 


‘False and Unjust Slanders’: The Duchess of Beaufort and her Daughter Quarrel over the 
Seymour Estate, by Molly McClain 


‘A Feast of Reason and a Flow of Soul’: The Archaeological Antiquarianism of Sir Richard 
Colt Hoare, by David Robinson 


Spiders of the Family Tetragnathidae (Araneae) in Wiltshire, by Martin Askins 
The Use of Beetles in Evaluating the Saproxylic Status of Savernake Forest, by Michael Darby 
The Friendship between Sir John Thynne junior and John, Baron Stourton of Stourton in 


Wiltshire: an Account of the Provenance of the Portrait of the 10th Baron Cobham and his 
Family at Longleat House, by Kate Harris 


19 


54 


63 


69 


77 


89 


98 


111 


129 


137 


143 


From Pit Circles to Propellers: Recent Results from Aerial Survey in Wiltshire, by Martyn 
Barber, Damian Grady and Helen Winton 


Beaker Presence at Wilsford 7, by Humphrey Case, with contributions by Paul Robinson 
and Alison Hopper-Bishop 


‘A Family Chapel . . . to an Archdruid’s Dwelling’: an investigation into the stone circle at 
Winterbourne Bassett, Wiltshire, by Andrew David, David Field, Joerg Fassbinder, Neil 
Linford, Paul Linford and Andrew Payne 


Notes and Shorter Contributions 


Recent work on St Laurence’s Chapel, Bradford-on-Avon: an interim report, by David A. 
Hinton 


From Tiny Seeds . . . a Correction, by Antoinnette Rawlings 

A Bronze Genius figure from Badbury, by Bernard Phillips and Martin Henig 
Thomas Twining’s Roman Avebury, by Rick Peterson 

Early Dog Collars in Wiltshire Museums, by Kenneth Rogers and Paul Robinson 


A Newly Discovered Round Barrow and Proposed Dispersed Linear Cemetery at Boscombe 
Down West, by Bob Clarke and Colin Kirby 


A mid Saxon Disc-Brooch from Upavon, by David A. Hinton 

Clack Mount, by Steven Hobbs 

A Curious Roof Modification at no. 47 The Close, Salisbury, by Michael Heaton 
Fir Clump Stone Circle — a correction, by Aubrey Burl 


The Glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca, (Linnaeus, 1758)) in Wiltshire: an Update, by Michael 
Darby 


Steam Cultivation in Wiltshire during the First World War, Peter Donovan 
A Romano-British figurine of Mercury from near Durnford, by Martin Henig 
Breton Melchi, ‘Prince-Hound’, and Melksham, by Andrew Breeze 


Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2001 


Reviews 


John Bowen, The Story of Malmesbury, part 1: 500 BC - 1600 AD, by Kay S. Taylor 
The Picture Book of Malmesbury, by Kay S. ‘Taylor 
Reis, John (ed.), Plenderleath’s Memoranda of Cherhill, by Michael Marshman 


Tim Couzens, Hand of Fate: the History of the Longs, Wellesleys and the Draycot Estate in Wiltshire, 
by Ken Rogers 


Index, by Philip Aslett 


148 


161 


195 


206 


206 


240 


The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 
History Society 


The Society was founded in 1853. Its activities include 
the promotion of the study of archaeology (including 
industrial archaeology), history, natural history and 
architecture within the county; the issue of a Magazine, 
and other publications, and the maintenance of a 
Museum, Library, and Art Gallery. There is a programme 
of lectures and excursions to places of archaeological, 
historical and scientific interest. 

The Society’s Museum contains important collections 
relating to the history of man in Wiltshire from earliest 
times to the present day, as well as the geology and natural 
history of the county. It is particularly well known for its 
prehistoric collections. The Library houses a 
comprehensive collection of books, articles, pictures, 
prints, drawings and photographs relating to Wiltshire. 
The Society welcomes the gift of local objects, printed 
material, paintings and photographs to add to the 
collections. 

The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History 
Magazine is the annual journal of the Society and is issued 
free to its members. For information about the availability 
of back numbers and other publications of the Society, 
enquiry should be made to the Curator. 

Publication by the Wiltshire Archaeological and 
Natural History Society does not imply that the Society 
endorses the views expressed; the factual content and the 
opinions presented herein remain the responsibility of the 
authors. 


Notes for Contributors 


Contributions for the Magazine should be on subjects 
related to the archaeology, history or natural history of 
Wiltshire. While there is no fixed length, papers should 
ideally be under 7,000 words, though longer papers will 
be considered if of sufficient importance. Shorter, note 
length, contributions are also welcome. All contributions 
should be typed/ word processed, with text on one side of 
a page only, with good margins and double spacing. 
Language should be clear and comprehensible. 
Contributions of article length should be accompanied 
by a summary of about 100 words. Please submit two 
copies of the text (with computer disk if possible) and 
clear photocopies of any illustrations to the editors at the 
Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1NS. 
A further copy should be retained by the author. The 
editors will be pleased to advise and discuss with intending 
contributors at any stage during the preparation of their 
work. When submitting text on disk, Word or Rich Text 


Format files are preferred. Contributors are encouraged 
to seek funding from grant-making bodies towards the 
Society’s publication costs wherever possible. 


Referencing: The Harvard System of referencing (author, 
date and page, in parentheses within the text) is preferred: 
e.g. *... one sheep and one dog lay close together (Clay 
1925, 69)’. References in footnotes should be avoided if 
at all possible. Only give references which are directly 
applicable, repeating as little as possible. All references 
cited in the paper should be listed in the bibliography 
using the following style (with the journal name spelled 
in full, and the place and publisher of books/ monographs 
given): 


For a paper: 

PITTS, M.W. and WHITTLE, A. 1992.The development 
and date of Avebury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric 
Society 58, 203-12. 

(Note that in citations Wiltshire Archaeological and 

Natural History Magazine is abbreviated to WANHM) 
For a book or monograph: 

SMITH, I.F., 1965, Windmill Hill and Avebury: 
Excavations by Alexander Keiller, 1925-39. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press 


For a paper in a book or monograph: 

FITZPATRICK, A., 1984, ‘The deposition of La Téne 
metalwork in watery contexts in Southern England’, 
in B. Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron 
Age in Central Southern Britain, 178-90. Oxford: 
University Committee for Archaeology 

Endnotes can be used for specific information that cannot 

otherwise be comfortably incorporated in the main body 

of the text. 


Illustrations need to be clear and easily reproducible, 
the format following that of the Magazine. If possible, all 
original artwork should not exceed A3 before reduction. 
Drawings should be produced on drafting film or high 
quality white paper using black ink. Detail and lettering 
should not be so small that it will become lost in reduction. 
Mechanical lettering (dry transfer or computer generated) 
is preferred over hand lettering. Photographs should be 
supplied as good quality black and white prints, and 
transparencies and colour prints avoided wherever 
possible. Digitised images may be supplied as computer 
files in certain formats: please seek advice from the editors. 
Original illustrations and photographs should only be sent 
once a contribution has been accepted. 


Offprints: Ten offprints of each article will be given free 
(to be shared between joint authors). Offprints are not 
given for notes and reviews. 


WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL 
AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY 


BOARD OF TRUSTEES (from 16 November 2002) 


Chairman 
Lt. Col. C Chamberlain 


Deputy Chairmen 
Mrs G Swanton, BA, Dip.Ad.Ed. 
J HThomas BA, PhD, FRHistS 


Other Elected Trustees 

Miss A Arrowsmith BSc 

B K Davison OBE, BA, FSA, MIFA 
Mrs W P Lansdown 

W A Perry (Hon Treasurer) 

D Roseaman 

CA Shell, MA, MMet, PhD 

E Stanford, FRBS 

JSS Stewart BSc, MB, ChB, FRCS 
MJH Stiff BA, DPhil 


Nominated Trustees 

A Mills (Member, Devizes Town Council) 

P.R. Saunders, BA, FSA, FMA, FRSA (Director, Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum) 
Mrs J Triggs (Member, Kennet District Council) 

Two Vacancies (Wiltshire County Council) 


In attendance: 
T Craig (Wiltshire County Council Heritage Services Manager) 


COLLECTIONS TRUSTEES (from 3 March 2001) 


RC Hatchwell 


C Meays 

Miss V Novarra 

OFFICERS 

Curator P H Robinson, PhD, FSA, AMA 

Assistant Curator and Keeper of Natural Sciences A S Tucker, BSc, AMA 

Sandell Librarian and Archivist Mrs L. Haycock, BA, PhD, Dip ELH, Cert.Ed. 


Outreach Officer Ms R Stalker HND, BA, MA 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 1-6 


Frederick Kenneth Annable — ‘Ken’ — BA, FSA, 
FMA, 1922-2002: a Memoir 
by Nicholas Thomas (Curator 1952-1957) 


Ken Annable served the Society and its museum 
for 32 years, 29 of them as its Curator. This is a 
record that will be hard to beat, not just because of 
its length — anybody can work on and on if allowed. 
It was the quality of what he did in virtually every 
department of this entrancing, treasure-filled 
museum that may never be bettered. And, when 
asked, he attended to a host of other matters that 
were essential to the smooth running of the Society. 
I felt touched and privileged when invited to 
write an obituary for Ken and I have chosen to make 
it a personal tribute rather than something more 
formal. Three friends and colleagues, Lorna 
Haycock, Paul Robinson and Ian Hodder have 
contributed essays about Ken recently, in which his 
work as a Romano-British scholar has been 
emphasised (Roman Wiltshire and After; Papers in 
Honour of Ken Annable, ed. Peter Ellis, WANHS 
2001). Though drawing on some of the detail 
already set down in Ken’s festschrift (which he just 
lived to receive), I have thought it appropriate to 
concentrate on his achievements in this wonderful 
museum of ours as its Curator. I have also done 
my best to include a bibliography of his writings. 
Major influences on Ken’s adult life and career 
came from his childhood and war service. He was 
a Derby man born and bred. From his father who 
played the timpani in a local orchestra must have 
come at least the germ of his love of music. Ken’s 
elder brother, later Secretary of Derby County 
Football Club, had first choice, as a child, of what 
instrument to learn, and he selected the piano. Ken 
had to be content with the fiddle, though when in 
the right mood he could perform impressively on 
the spoons. Soon after the outbreak of World War 
II, Ken enlisted in the Royal Corps of Signals (and 
subsequently in the Royal Scots Greys and the 


Household Cavalry) and was stationed in the 
Middle East, West Africa and Germany. It was while 
training in what is now Ghana to go to Burma that 
he came into contact with Professor A.W. Lawrence, 
the classical archaeologist, who at that time was 
teaching in Achimota College. Lawrence permitted 
the scholarly young soldier to read in the library 
each weekend. One of my many reasons to feel 
grateful to Ken was the communication of his 
passion for the life and writings of T.E. Lawrence, 
which he must have obtained from his mentor at 
Achimota, the man’s brother (and generous friend 
and Honorary Member of this Society). Ken’s own 
library included a wealth of T-E.L.’s published work, 
all of which he lent me to devour during my 
curatorship at Devizes. If Professor Lawrence fed 
Ken’s scholarly appetite, so the antiquities which 
he saw while serving in Egypt must also have 
inspired him with a feeling for the remote past, and 
especially for the deep and compelling romance of 
it, which inclined him towards a career in 
archaeology. 

But this was not before his three fruitful years 
as an ex-Forces undergraduate at Reading 
University where he read English and Classics, and 
where, too, he met Myra, a fellow student reading 
Music, Latin and French. They married in 1952. 
The seal was set upon Ken’s future in archaeology 
in 1950, when he gained a place at the University 
of London Institute of Archaeology to read for the 
two-year diploma in the Archaeology of the Roman 
Provinces. That was where we met, my preference 
being European prehistoric archaeology. 

In those days the Institute was located in the 
slightly dilapidated but appealing Regency mansion, 
St. John’s Lodge. It stood in the inner circle of 
Regent’s Park, Queen Mary’s rose garden facing it, 


Upper House, Belle Vue, Newlyn, Cornwall TR18 5ED 


2 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


the open air theatre across the road, the London 
Zoo audibly located away in the opposite direction. 
The giants of archaeology, environmental studies 
and object conservation were there to teach us — 
Gordon Childe, Mortimer Wheeler, Kathleen 
Kenyon, Max Mallowan, Frederick Zeuner, Ian 
Cornwall, Ionye Gedye. If Ken sought further for 
romance in archaeology, he found it in the 
inspiration which came especially from Wheeler, 
both at the Lodge and during his famous field trips. 
Verulamium became a spiritual home. 

His diploma achieved, Ken began the search 
for a post, preferably in archaeology. Meanwhile, 
like many young graduates then, he directed 
excavations for the Ministry of Public Buildings and 
Works. Ken was not averse to prehistory. In 1951 
he joined Richard Atkinson and me at the Big Rings, 
Dorchester-on-Thames (Whittle et al. 1992), and 
the following summer a number of fellow Institute 
students, with Ken, followed me to the 
Thornborough Circles near Ripon, where we made 
a trial excavation at the famous henge monument 
which, with its two neighbours, so closely resembled 
the Big Rings (Thomas 1955a). In 1953 Ken went 
back into the field, extending his excavation 
experience at Great Chesterford (Essex), where he 
began a lengthy campaign, completed and 
published by Vera Evison with acknowledgement 
to Ken, on a series of Pagan Saxon graves in a gravel 
pit (Evison 1994). His work at the Cantley Estate, 
Doncaster Romano-British pottery kilns followed 
(Bibliography, 1954, 1960). For about three months 
during the autumn of 1952 Ken had also worked 
as a volunteer at Guildford Museum. This offered 
him his first and very influential taste for work in a 
world in which, in due course, he was to find his 
own special place. 

This kind of peripatetic archaeology is not ideal, 
even if Myra was there in support. The relief must 
have been considerable when Ken applied 
successfully for the Assistant Curatorship at 
Devizes. It was a wonderful day for all of us when, 
in February 1954, as I recall so vividly, Ken and 
Myra drew up outside the Museum in a 
pantechnicon containing their worldly possessions. 
They were to occupy the flat at no. 41, now the 
Society’s administrative area, curatorial offices and 
workroom. 

For the next 32 years, three as Assistant Curator 
with special responsibility for archaeological 
conservation (including a day a week at Salisbury 
Museum), Ken dedicated his life to the daunting 
multiple role of Curator, field archaeologist, 


researcher, assistant to the Society and willing 
servant to the Museum’s many clients, young and 
old. He re-displayed the entire museum. He 
combined curatorship with pioneering work in the 
field, scrupulously published, as contributors to his 
festschrift gratefully acknowledge. And he remained 
at the beck and call of the Society, playing an 
important part in its several committees, editing 
WANHM at one stage with Isobel Smith (whom 
we both knew from our days at the Institute where 
she was Gordon Childe’s personal secretary), 
leading Society walks, lecturing and teaching. He 
found time to be tutor for the Museums Diploma 
and was notably generous with the help and 
encouragement he gave to researchers, scholarly or 
more casual. Many of the students who worked on 
attachment to Devizes Museum have gone on to 
develop notable careers in universities and museums. 

This enormous achievement, this immense 
labour to transform the Museum and make its 
collections fully accessible, can best be appreciated 
in the form of a chronology, beginning with the 
year of my appointment as the Society’s first 
professional Curator in August 1952. In all of this, 
Ken and I acknowledge with praise and gratitude 
that had it not been for the help, as carpenter and 
electrician, of Albert Cole, formerly of the Wiltshire 
Regiment and husband of Frances, our caretaker, 
little would have been possible and then only slowly, 
since Bert gave his services each evening for a token 
payment. It is noticeable how the programme of 
re-display slowed after he and Frances retired in 
July 1968. 


1952-3, N.T: alone 

Centenary Exhibition, ground floor, no. 41 

Gift of grave group from the Manton barrow (Preshute 
Gla) negotiated and exhibited for the first time in 
that exhibition 

Conservation facilities for pottery and metalwork installed 

Office for Curator established, 1st floor, no. 41 

Refurbishment of Natural History Gallery begun by 
Natural History section and Cyril Rice, Beatrice 
Gillam 

Neolithic/Beaker Room (today’s mediaeval gallery) 


1954-7, N.T., F.K.A. 

Five-Year Plan (Thomas 1955 with plan) 

Lecture Hall with platform, fire escape 1954 

Visitors’ entrance transferred to no. 41, 1954-5 

Picture Gallery in former entrance hall, 1955-6 

Recent History Room (later Henge Room), 1956 
Planning of Bronze Age, Iron Age rooms, no. 41, begun 


FREDERICK KENNETH ANNABLE, 1922-2002: A MEMOIR 5) 


Ken (far right) with his colleagues in April 1954. Left to right: Nicholas Thomas (curator), Justus Akeredolu 
(attached Institute of Archaeology student, from Nigeria), Frances Cole (caretaker), Albert Cole (carpenter/ 
electrician). The group 1s sitting outside Mr and Mrs Coles’s flat at the rear of the Museum. 


1954, 1955 

Negotiation for display grant from Carnegie United 
Kingdom Trust for Bronze Age, Iron Age rooms 
achieved 1956 

Bronze Age Room installation begun 1956, 1957 


1957-86, EK.A. (Assistant Curators listed below) 

Natural History Gallery (former Stourhead Room) 
opened 1958 (name board over entrance carved by 
Beatrice Gillam) 

Bronze Age Room, with study storage of all grave groups, 
opened 1960 

Dark Room added to pottery repair room, 1960-1 

Anglo-Saxon/ Mediaeval Room (former Neolithic Room), 
1962 

Neolithic/ Beaker gallery (former Picture Gallery), 1962 

Conversion of attics in no.41 to Museum stores, begun 
1961, completed 1970 

Recent History Room refurbished, 1963 

Gas-fired central heating installed, 1965 

Planning and installation of Iron Age displays begun, 1965 

Iron Age Room opened, 1968 


Frances and Albert Cole retired 1968.The Iron Age Room 
display mounts were Albert’s final contribution. Olly 
Brown, his successor, was not appointed until 1971 

Flat in no. 41 converted for storage, workshop use, 1971 

Repair, restoration of the Marlborough Vat negotiated with 
British Museum, installed in Iron Age Room in new 
display case, 1971 

Roman Room refurbished from 1970, opened 1975 

Henge Room (replacing Recent History), 1979 

New Neolithic/ Beaker Room (former Curator’s office) 
enlarged, 1980 

The Bonar Sykes Wing was built in 1980-1 and opened 
by Sir David Eccles, Minister for Works in 1982 

New Art Gallery, John Piper Window, 1982 

Anglo-Saxon Gallery (Coles’s former flat), 1982 

Natural History store, 1982 

Natural History Gallery enlarged, re-displayed, 1983 

Two cellars beneath no. 41 converted to storage, 1984-5 

Devizes Museum awarded Museum of the Year, 1984 
(see frontispiece in Ken’s festschrift) 

Picture Store, metalwork store, 1985 

Ken Annable retired, 1986 


4 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Assistant Curators who worked with N.T: and F-K. A. 
S.M. Mottram, 1953 

EK. Annable, 1954-1957 

D.D.A. Simpson, 1960 

G.P. Lamacraft, 1961 

G.P. Mitchell ( née Lamacraft), 1962-1964 

A.M. Burchard, 1965-1973 

P.H. Robinson, 1974-1985 (Acting Curator 1985-1986) 
S.A. Cross , 1980-1986 


Ken was a good committee man, always short 
and to the point, and strong with it when necessary. 
As well as serving the Society’s Council, he worked 
with a number of its smaller groups, including 
liaison with Salisbury Museum, the County 
Council, the Area Museums Council. He was 
secretary of the Archaeology sub-committee in the 
sixties. Here his important contribution was to draft 
the 1966 memoranda I and II which became the 
Society’s submission to the Ministry of Public 
Building and Works, concerning proposed G 
overnment changes to the Ancient Monuments Acts 
(Fowler 1968). 

From the outset Ken believed that good 
curatorship should include excavation and 
fieldwork. As Ian Hodder and others have made 
clear in the festschrift, Ken remained essentially a 
Romanist. Cunetio became his patch, the Savernake 
kilns and their product his speciality, their rapid 
publication his scholarly duty. Perusal of Ken’s 
bibliography also reveals a steady outpouring of 
short, pithy notes on Romano- British objects which 
had found their way to the Museum, together with 
more substantial papers on his excavations. A 
pleasing and productive aspect of Ken’s fieldwork 
was his collaboration with Tony Clark, who was 
engaged in development of his Martin—Clark proton 
magnetometer in the late fifties (Bibliography, 
1966). 

Ken’s interest in post-Roman times, perhaps 
first aroused at Great Chesterford in 1953 (Evison, 
1994), was renewed towards the end of his museum 
career when the need arose to excavate a spectacular 
series of Pagan Saxon graves at Blacknall Field, 
Black Patch, Pewsey. The long loan of these 
important and often beautiful grave goods he 
negotiated successfully in 1973 and they now form 
the centre of interest in the Anglo-Saxon Room, 
which he set out in 1982. The manuscript of his 
excavation report on the Blacknall graves was 
substantially complete at his death, a tribute not 
just to his scholarship but also to his courageous 
perseverance in the face of declining eyesight. 


Ken made one contribution of great significance 
to European prehistory. With Assistant Curator 
Derek Simpson he published the catalogue of the 
Neolithic and Bronze Age collections which make 
our museum so famous (Bibliography, 1964c). Ken 
also initiated work on an Iron Age catalogue, whose 
completion by Mark Corney is awaited. During the 
sixties Ken was also collaborating with Margaret 
Smith and Professor Christopher Hawkes on the 
preparation of nine cards to add to the Great Britain 
series within the Inventaria Archaeologica, an 
expanding European publication during those years. 
These cards would have highlighted our holding of 
princely Bronze Age grave groups and it was 
unfortunate that the British contribution to the 
series ceased before the Devizes Museum cards 
could be added to it. 

Away from the Museum, the diversity of Ken’s 
interests should cause no surprise. Those maps, 
diagrams and other illustrations, which he prepared 
himself to enhance all his museum displays — and 
models too — reflect his gifts as a serious artist. He 
never spoke of it and he never exhibited. He 
particularly loved pastel and occasionally painted 
in oils. He saw drawing as the basis of good art and 
during his retirement he used to have regular weekly 
drawing lessons. His museum models also reflect 
his considerable manual skill, seen again in his repair 
of museum pots and in cabinet making. 

Ken wanted people to know about things and 
to appreciate the romance, especially the romance 
of the past, which was also his principal motivation. 
The museum world was for him an ideal one 
through which to communicate this passion. A 
speciality within his approach to museum display 
was the provision in galleries of discreet extra 
information panels, which contained data for the 
more dedicated museum visitor. And from 1958 
he composed an annual Curator’s Report 
(discontinued after 1973), which was always a 
model of good English and a delight to read. Ken 
enjoyed writing poetry. He never let others read it, 
often screwing up and throwing a piece away when 
done with. It formed an essential part of the artistic 
and very private side of Ken which few other than 
Myra ever saw. 

This clever, formidably well-read, intensely 
amiable and valued friend and colleague could be 
wonderfully entertaining, whether as formal speaker 
or in more private company. Some of my most 
pleasurable days when at Devizes were spent with 
Ken and Dick Sandell, visiting other museums and 
sites in Dick’ state-of-the-art two tone green 


FREDERICK KENNETH ANNABLE, 1922-2002: A MEMOIR 5 


Sunbeam Talbot. A slap-up lunch, which Ken and 
I paid for, was a feature of these extra-curricular 
days out. Once during such a meal Ken asked us, 
“Do you know what the French for “Mow the lawn” 
is?’ Always eager to receive some new apercu from 
Ken, we confessed ignorance. ‘Mot de I’an’, came 
the reply. 

And Ken could be robust in his views and 
straight in remonstration. I have never forgotten 
the shock of being hauled over the coals by him, 
when accusing me, quite rightly, of becoming an 
absentee. It made me realise that it was time for me 
to move on, which I was able to do shortly 
afterwards, and I found it especially touching to 
read Ken’s more than generous remarks about my 
work at the Museum, which appeared in his Annual 
Report the following year (WANHM 57, 1958, 99). 

The climax to Ken Annable’s time as Curator 
of Devizes Museum came with the award of 
Museum of the Year in 1984, one year before his 
retirement (festschrift, frontispiece). I believe that 
Ken’s contribution to the community through 
curatorship, excavation and scholarly writing went 
far beyond the call of duty and surely deserved much 
wider recognition than his Fellowship of the 
Museums Association (1968) and of the Society of 
Antiquaries of London (1962) reflect. In words 
which appear on many medals commemorating the 
tercentenary of the birth of Shakespeare in 1864, 
“We shall not look upon his like again’. Our 
successors will be the poorer for it. 

Ken’s wife Myra, also a devoted friend of this 
Society, and his three daughters survive him. 


Finale 

It was Myra who told me about Ken’s poetry and 
his unwillingness to have it known. However, she 
recalled a poem with which Ken began his 
unpublished history of St. Mary’s church, Bishops 
Cannings. It is not acknowledged, but she thinks 
that he wrote it. In this belief Myra has allowed me 
to add it to my memorial as a final affectionate act 
of homage to this special man. 


Laudate! 

O, preferable are the celestial cities of the Early 
English Gothic! 

Look, stranger, on these aery transepts now, 

This blessed Chantry of Our Lady Bower. 

Slim-line columns, fanfare of trumpet scallop, 

Still-leaf ornament, sculpted and jaunty, 

Looking as if it were alive, 

And crystal lancets; all, 


All leaping light and glad grace. 
Sweet friend, be reconciled: herein, 
Changeless from the beginning, 
Prevailing as the deeps, 

Breathes the moving Spirit of God. 


References 


EVISON, V., 1994, An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Great 
Chestertord, Essex (CBA Research Report 91) 
FOWLER, P.J., 1968, ‘Conservation and the countryside’, 
WANHM 63, 1-11 

THOMAS, N., 1955, ‘The Thornborough Circles, near 
Ripon, North Riding’, Yorkshire Archaeological Jnl 
38, 425-45 

WHITTLE, A., ATKINSON, R.J.C., CHAMBERS, R., 
and THOMAS, N., 1992, ‘Excavations in the 
Neolithic and Bronze Age complex at Dorchester- 
on-Thames, Oxfordshire’, Proc Prehist Soc 58, 143- 
201 


BIBLIOGRAPHY OF KEN 
ANNABLE’S WRITING 


1954 ‘The Roman pottery kilns at Cantley Housing 
Estate, Doncaster, Kilns 1-8’, Yorkshire 
Archaeological Journal 38, 403-12 

1956 ‘Stone coffin at Bradford-on-Avon’, WANHM 56, 
390-1 

1956a ‘An ancient British forgery’, ibid, 391-2 

1958 ‘Excavation and field-work in Wiltshire: 1957’, 
WANHM, 57, 2-17 

1959 ‘Excavation and field-work in Wiltshire: 1958’, ibid, 
227-39. This includes records of K.A.’s important 
work in Cunetio (Roman Mildenhall) and Savernake 
Forest 

1960 The Romano-British Pottery at Cantley Housing 
Estate, Doncaster, Kilns 1- 8. Doncaster Museum 
Publications XXIV 

1960a ‘Storridge Farm, Westbury. A Roman lead coffin’, 
WANHM 57, 402 

1962 ‘A Romano-British pottery in Savernake Forest, 
Kilns 1-2’, WANHM 58, 142-55 

1962a ‘Romano-British burials at Devizes’, ibid, 222-3 

1962b ‘Bronze brooch found in Savernake Forest’, ibid, 
226 

1963 “The Romano-British pottery’, in F. de M. Vatcher, 
“The excavation of the barrows on Lamb Down, 
Codford St Mary’, 432-3, WANHM 58, 417-41 

1964a ‘Pottery’, in P.M. Christie, ‘A Bronze Age round 
barrow on Earl’s Farm Down Amesbury’, 39-40, 
WANHM 59, 30-45 


6 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


1964b ‘The Romano-British pottery’, in I.F. Smith and 
D.D.A. Simpson, ‘Excavation of three Roman Tombs 
and a prehistoric pit on Overton Down’, 79-81, 
WANHM 59, 68-85 

1964c ‘Romano-British interments at Parsonage Farm, 
Winsley’, WANHM 59, 182-3 

1964d F.K.Annable and D.D.A. Simpson, Guide 
Catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age 
Collections in Devizes Museum. Devizes 

1965 ‘Romano-British pottery’, in G. Connah et al, 
‘Excavations at Knap Hill, Alton Priors, 1961’, 
WANHM 60, 1-23 

1966 ‘A first-century well at Cunetio’, WANHM 61, 9- 
24 

1966a ‘Romano-British interments at Potterne’, WANHM 
61,95 

1966b ‘A Romano-British interment at Bradford-on- 
Avon’, ibid, 95-6 

1966c ‘A ? Romano-British interment at Maiden Bradley’, 
ibid, 96-7 

1970 “The Roman pottery’, in J.X.W.P. Corcoran, “The 
Giant’s Caves, Luckington, (Wil 2)’, 54-6, WANHM 
65, 39-63 

1970a “The Romano-British pottery’, in G.J. Wainwright, 
‘An Iron Age promontory fort at Budbury, Bradford- 
on-Avon, Wiltshire’, 163-4, WANHM 65, 108-66 

1971 ‘Pottery’, in N.P. Thompson et al, ‘Archaeological 
research in the Pewsey Vale’, 68-9, WANHM 66, 58- 
15) 

1972 Review: Bronze Age Metalwork in Salisbury 
Museum, by C.N. Moore and M. Rowlands, WANHM 
67, 189-90 


1974a ‘A bronze military apron mount from Cunetio’, 
WANHM 69, 176-9 

1974b E.K. Annable, A.M. Burchard and P.E. Cray, ‘The 
1965 excavations and finds’, in M.R. McCarthy et 
al, ‘The medieval kilns on Nash Hill, Lacock, 
Wiltshire’, 146-60, WANHM 69, 97-160 

1976a ‘A bronze military mount from Folly Farm’, 
WANHM 70/71, 126-7 

1976b ‘A late bronze buckle fragment from Cunetio’, ibid, 
127-8 

1980 ‘A coffined burial of Roman date from Cunetio’, 
WANHM 72/73, 187-91 

1991 The Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Bishop’s 
Cannings. Devizes 

1993 Following publication of this church guide, Ken 
spent about a year researching the history of the 
church in depth on behalf of the Parish Council, with 
a book in mind. Its title was to be The Parish Church 
of St Mary the Virgin, Bishop’s Cannings, a 
Celebration AD 1091-1993. Unfortunately the ms 
would have proved too costly to publish and the 
project was shelved. A number of copies were 
distributed locally, including the Parish Council 
archive: and a copy has been given by Myra to 
WANHS. 

2003 (forthcoming) Romano-British pottery derived from 
agriculture around the barrow cemetery, in N. 
Thomas et al, Snail Down, Wiltshire, The Bronze Age 
Barrow Cemetery and Related Earthworks in the 
Parishes of Collingbourne Ducis and Collingbourne 
Kingston. Excavations, 1953, 1955 and 1957. 
WANHS Monograph 3 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 7-18 


A Wiltshire ‘Bog Body’?: Discussion of a Fifth/Sixth 
Century AD Burial in the Woodford Valley 


by Jacqueline I. McKinley 


During a watching brief occasioned by the construction of an amenity lake at Lake, in the Woodford Valley, 
near Salisbury, the waterlogged remains of inhumation burial with a wooden ‘cover’ were discovered. In the 
absence of associated artefacts, radiocarbon analysis showed the burial to be of 5th-6th century date. This 
paper considers the nature of the burial and others from ‘watery’ contexts, together with its potential 
significance within the contemporaneous landscape and society. 


INTRODUCTION 


Project Background 


Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by 
Morrows, on behalf of a client, to undertake 
archaeological investigations on land adjacent to 
the River Avon, at Lake in the Woodford Valley, near 
Salisbury (centred on SU 4137 1388; Figure 1). 
The investigations were stipulated by Salisbury 
District Council, on the advice of the County 
Archaeological Service of Wiltshire County 
Council, as part of the planning permission attached 
to the construction of an amenity/trout lake. 

The site lay on alluvium (calcareous alluviai gley 
soils) over Valley Gravels and Upper Chalk at 
c.60.4m aOD, and before excavation of the lake 
the land was under rough pasture. The project 
comprised two stages of investigations: an earthwork 
survey of the proposed area of construction to 
record traces of a relict water meadow (undertaken 
July 1996) and a watching brief during the 
mechanical excavation of the lake (August 1996). 
During the course of the latter timbers were noted 
in a section of the excavations. These proved to be 
part of a grave containing the remains of an 
inhumation burial. 


Archaeological Background 


Lake lies within the area of the ‘Stonehenge 
Environs’, in which there is ‘a remarkable 
concentration of archaeological remains’ (RCHME 
1979, ix). The earliest finds from the vicinity 
comprise Palaeolithic flint implements, including 
handaxes and flakes, found at Lake in the 19th 
century. Four Bronze Age bowl barrows lie within 
300m of Lake, with the Lake Down and Wilsford 
Barrow Groups to the north west. Remnants of 
prehistoric field systems have been recorded within 
the vicinity, for example at Lake Bottom, Lake 
Down and Rox Hill. A number of Iron Age hillforts 
are known within the area, the nearest being Ogbury 
Camp which lies to the south-east of Lake. 
Evidence for Roman activity in the immediate area 
is limited, although individual finds of coins and 
pottery indicate some continuity from the earlier 
period (Richards 1990, 280, fig. 17; Wainwright 
1971, 76). 

The Domesday Survey describes two estates in 
Wilsford, the Deserted Medieval Village in Lake 
Bottom probably being associated with one of them. 
The Lake estate passed through a number of hands, 
including the earls of Salisbury who remained 
overlords throughout the 12th to 14th centuries. 


Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, SP4 6EB 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Stonehenge 


- Wilsford 


> 


Lake Group ss 


Wilsford 
cum Lake 


eo 


: whe 
Wilsford Group * 


«= Spring Bottom 


Lake Downs - 
Group ¢ 


Lake Bottom 


Burial 
Village: 
Earthworks : ® 
; Barrow 


: : 
CH Built up area 
0 


Barrows : : ‘ 
: : jal ay =) 
| Contours in m O.D. 


500 m } 


Fig. 1. Site location and archaeological landscape 


The water-meadow system dates to the 17th John [Duke] had condoned the building of the bay 
century (Pugh 1962, 218); a ‘lawsuit of 1697 about and weir there’ (ibid). A plan of 1752 and large 
the making of the water-meadows in Woodford ... scale Ordnance Survey maps of 1887, 1901, 1925 
said that although it damaged the excellent fishing, and 1939 all show the major elements of the system. 


A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 9 


RESULTS OF THE FIELD 
SURVEY AND WATCHING 
BRIEF 


Field Survey 


A number of linear earthworks pertaining to the 
water meadow system were recorded comprising 
two carriages (east and west), one tail drain and a 
length of spillway all running approximately north- 
west to south-east, and 23 drains on approximately 
north-east to south-west alignments (terminology 
according with Cowan 1982; Figure 1). The western 
carriage, 2.5m wide and between 0.1-0.3m deep, 
ran roughly parallel to a large tail drain up to 6.5m 
wide and 0.4m deep. The drains were largely 
denoted by patches of sedge and longer grass within 
the otherwise fairly closely cropped meadow, being 
visible as earthworks (c.0.1m deep) only towards 
their western ends where they fed into the deeper 
tail drain and spillway. There were no traces of the 
carriers used to draw water from the carriages but 
these small features would have silted up quickly 
without regular maintenance. A constriction 
towards the northern end of the western carriage 
may represent the remains of a small sluice or hatch 
by which the flow of water from the main carriage 
was controlled, possibly indicating the facility to 
‘drown’ only half of the meadow while the other 
half remained dry. 


Watching Brief 


Observations at various locations in the area of the 
lake showed the topsoil (0.20m thick) overlaying a 
redeposited clay (c.0.45m thick) - probably 
imported to build up the water meadow system — 
above a highly humic/peaty layer (202; c.0.20m 
thick) containing Romano-British pottery, and 
burnt and worked flint. The latter overlay a blue- 
grey, waterlain clay (203; c.0.25m thick) with 
inclusions of worked flint, above the undisturbed 
natural valley gravels. 

All the worked flint (40 fragments, 1374g) 
derives from local gravel sources and is generally in 
a fresh condition. The pieces consist of undiagnostic 
flakes and possible core fragments, suggesting a 
broad date range of Neolithic to Bronze Age. An 
extensive layer of undiagnostic, unworked burnt 
flint on the eastern shore of the lake lay at the 


interface of the natural valley gravels and the 
waterlain blue-grey clay (203). All the pottery (26 
fragments, 312 g) is of Romano-British date and is 
either unstratified or associated with layer 202. With 
the exception of a single sherd of samian (1st or 
2nd century AD) and one sherd of New Forest 
colour coated ware (mid 3rd to 4th century AD), 
the small assemblage comprises a range of 
coarsewares including both early and late vessel 
types. These finds indicate that the shores of this 
stretch of the River Avon were the site of extensive 
activity in the prehistoric period and fairly regular 
use in the Romano-British period, the relative 
stability of the plant matter in the latter phase 
contrasting with the blue-grey clay which 
characterised the earlier shore. 

‘The absence of later finds suggests that the area 
went out of use in the post-Roman period, with no 
further evidence of the land having being used until 
the postulated deposition of imported clay to build 
the water meadow in the 1690s. 


THE BURIAL 


The Grave 


At the time of excavation the grave, situated on the 
north-western margins of the lake, was under 
several centimetres of water (Plate 1) requiring the 
insertion of a partial coffer-dam allowing the water 
within the enclosed area to be pumped out (Plate 
2). The grave cut (c.2.20 x 0.80m) was not clear, 
the margins largely being defined by the slight 
change in character between the grave fill (a fine, 
blue-grey silty clay) and the surrounding deposit 
(203). The majority of the 14 loose oak timbers 
recovered lay longitudinally over the skeletal 
remains (Figure 2; Plate 3), those to either side 
apparently resting against the sides of the grave cut 
through the clay (203).The timbers comprise radial 
and tangential planks of varying dimensions 
(maximum c.2m), each having at least one cut end 
(sawn or chopped) with little other signs of working 
beyond the primary splitting. One squared timber 
has been worked the length of one face and facets 
from a metal axe or adze are visible. The size and 
form of the timbers suggests they were re-used, but 
the absence of any distinguishing features precludes 
deduction of what their previous function may have 
been. The nature and disposition of the timbers 
indicated they did not represent a coffin; rather, 


10 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 


Detail plan of skeleton & 


—— 


Upper grave planking 


Lower grave planking 


Skeleton 


0 


SS 


Scale 1:20 


0 


Scale 1:10 


Above: Fig. 2. The burial; skeletal remains and plank cover 
Far left: Plate 2. Coffer-dam and pumping mechanism after removal of plank cover (from south) 
Left: Plate 3. In situ burial after partial removal of upper planking (from north) 


11 


12 


they appear to be the remains of a cover, perhaps 
originally resting on the side timbers. The grave 
appeared to be sealed by the humic layer (202). 


The Human Remains 


The burial was made fully prone and extended, on 
a south-north alignment; the left arm was flexed 
with the hand resting on the abdomen and the right 
arm extended (Figure 2, Plate 2). The bone was in 
good condition, though stained brown by the humic 
conditions and slightly friable due to the 
waterlogging. Some of the articular surfaces had 
fragmented, and the left distal parietal vault was 
damaged and slightly warped possibly in 
consequence of the collapse of the timbers overlying 
the body. The skull was the only part of the skeleton 
to protrude above the level of the timbers (Plate 3). 
The position of the burial, within an active water- 
meadow, the circumstances of identification and — 
despite ‘whole-earth’ recovery of the grave fill — the 
unusual nature of the excavation inevitably resulted 
in the loss of some of the smaller bones of the hands 
and feet. 

Approximately 94% of the skeleton was 
recovered, representing the remains of a young adult 
(20-25 years) female (ageing criteria from Beek 
1983, McMinn and Hutchings 1985, and Brothwell 
1972; sexing criteria from Bass 1987), with an 
estimated stature of 1.58m (5ft. 2% inches; Trotter 
and Gleser 1952, 1958; from fibula). The singular 
absence of the atlas vertebra (first cervical) from 
the spine may be viewed as significant, possibly 
reflecting some peri-mortem or immediately post- 
mortem damage, but it is difficult to see how this 
could have been affected without damaging the skull 
or adjacent vertebra. A few minor pathological 
lesions were observed; dental calculus, periodontal 
disease, Schmorl’s nodes (degenerative disc lesions) 
in the L4-5 and osteophytes (new bone) in the L5. 

A piece of undiagnostic worked flint was found 
close to the skull, and a tiny sherd of undatable 
pottery and a fragment of burnt, unworked flint 
were retrieved from the whole-earthed grave fill, 
but the finds are all residual and the burial had no 
directly associated artefacts. 


Dating 


It was not possible to obtain a reliable 
dendrochronological date from the timbers within 
the grave as all the wood was taken from a single 


2 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


tree whose ring pattern could not be matched with 
the national data base. A sample of 10-15 outer 
rings of the tree was taken from one of the timbers 
(<2001>) and submitted for radiocarbon dating 
(Scottish Universities Research and Reactor 
Centre). A result of 1560450 BP (GU-4921) was 
obtained, with a calibrated date of AD 450-610 
(calibration using the 20 year atmospheric 
calibration curve using CALIB 2.0, expressed at 
the 95% confidence limit with the end points 
rounded out to 10 years following the 
internationally recognised form (Mook 1986)). 
When the probability distribution is plotted using 
OxCal v2.10 it indicates a near perfect, steep 
gaussian curve and gives added confidence to a date 
around AD 500, indicating the burial was made in 
the early post-Roman period. 


DISCUSSION 


Contemporary Burial Practices 


‘The most commonly adopted burial posture within 
Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of the 5th-6th centuries 
comprised supine, extended burials on an west-east 
orientation (i.e. head to west; Hogarth 1973, 
Craddock 1979, Down and Welch 1990), from 
which position it is believed the body would ‘rise’ 
to face the dawn (Welch 1983). The rite reflected a 
continuation of the Late Romano-British burial 
tradition and that adopted in parts of earlier and 
contemporary pagan Germany and Gaul (ibid.). 
Variations in posture did occur however (e.g. 
Harman et al. 1981), with many cemeteries 
including at least a small proportion of north-south 
and/or south-north burials, for example c.8% of the 
burials at Droxford, Hampshire (Aldsworth 1979) 
and 26% at Charlton Plantation, Downton (Davies 
1985), whilst on occasions more substantial 
numbers may be observed as at Petersfinger, 
Salisbury (Leeds and Shortt 1953), where almost 
50% of burials had been made south-north. Rare 
crouched burials have also been found (e.g. Piggott 
and Piggott 1944; Green 1984; McKinley 1994, 
138). Burials were generally made within groups 
of variable size, some with associated barrows (e.g. 
Portway, Andover; Cook and Dacre 1985), and they 
frequently incorporated grave goods (Wilson 1992). 
Isolated lone burials dated to this period are rare. 

Several small groups and a few individual 5th 
century Anglo-Saxon burials have been found in 


A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 13 


Wiltshire, all in the vicinity of Salisbury, including 
east-west and north-south extended, supine burials 
with associated grave goods (Musty and Stratton 
1964, fig 2; Davies 1985, fig. 1; Eagles 1994, fig. 
1.1). Cemeteries, and by implication settlements, 
became more widespread in the 6th century, the 
distribution of at least the former tending to be 
focused on the rivers, the Avon apparently marking 
the western boundary of expansion at this time 
(Eagles 1994). However, not all 5th-6th century 
burials in the Wessex region would have been of 
incoming Saxons. There is a growing corpus of 
evidence indicative of the — not surprising — 
continued presence of earlier communities (1bid.). 
The two largest 5th-8th century cemeteries in 
Dorset, Ulwell, near Swanage (Cox 1988), and 
Tolpuddle Ball, near Dorchester (Herne and 
Birbeck 1999), both contained supine, extended 
burials with very few or no grave goods, indicating 
a continuation of the Late Romano-British burial 
tradition amongst the indigenous population. In 
these two cases, as with others in the region — such 
as the 5th-7th century crouched burial made 
amongst a small group of Iron Age graves at 
Tinney’s Lane, Sherborne (McKinley 1999) — the 
burials may easily have been attributed to the wrong 
phases without radiocarbon dating. Lone, 
unaccompanied burials such as that reported here 
are particularly susceptible to such erroneous 
allocation of date; single burials tend to be found 
unexpectedly as in this instance, and where there 
are no finds they tend to be dismissed as of little 
significance in expanding archaeological 
understanding of population groups. This attitude, 
however, overlooks their ritual significance which 
as singletons may be limited, but as temporally or 
geographically linked groups may offer significant 
insights into the social and religious views of those 
making such burials. 

Although prone burials were not the ‘normal’ 
mode of deposition at this time they are not 
uncommon in Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon 
cemeteries (Harman et al. 1981, Philpott 1991). 
The possible reasons suggested for pronation 
include stopping the dead from walking, sacrificial 
victims (generally females) and criminal executions; 
implicitly the individual so treated was in someway 
‘different’. South-north and/or north-south burials 
were common in many Romano-British cemeteries, 
for example Bath Gate, Cirencester (23% N-S, 40% 
S-N, McWhirr et al 1982, 76), and the Eastern 
~ cemetery in London (44% N-S/S-N; Barber and 
Bowsher 2000), in comparison with their generally 


less frequent occurrence in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries 
(see above). Whilst the use of wooden coffins 
became relatively common in the later 2" century, 
there was a marked decline in their use in the Late 
Romano-British period (Philpott 1991, 53). The 
use of wooden covers or vaults in both Romano- 
British and Anglo-Saxon graves has been indicated 
or implied either by the presence of wood stains, 
nails or brackets, and ledges or slots believed to act 
as supports (Hogarth 1973; Aldsworth 1979; 
Philpott 1991, 69-70). Elsewhere, the patterns of 
bone destruction and the ‘relaxed’ anatomical 
position of the skeleton have indicated that the grave 
fill was not immediately around the body (McKinley 
forthcoming). In many cases the covers or 
containers are implied rather than apparent, and 
the surviving cover in the Lake burial may not be 
as unusual as it appears. In this case the horizontal 
timbers may have rested on those to the side and 
have been roped together, subsequently collapsing 
on to the human remains. 

The apparent recognition and continuity in use 
of mortuary areas from early periods is a common 
theme within the Anglo-Saxon period with, for 
example, burials frequently being made in (e.g. 
Osgood 1999, table 1) — or in proximity to— Bronze 
Age barrows as at Christchurch and Swallowcliffe 
(Eagles 1994, 17 and 25) and Winterbourne 
Gunner. 


Burials in ‘Watery’ Contexts 


With the exception of disarticulated human remains 
— predominantly skulls — dredged-up from river 
deposits (e.g. c.299 finds from the Thames and its 
tributaries in the London region: English Heritage 
Gazetteer; Bradley 1990, 108-9; O Floinn 1995) 
and coastal waters, burials from ‘watery’ contexts 
focus on peat deposits, the so-called “bog bodies’. 
Accumulated data show in excess of 1500 such 
‘burials’ concentrated in north-west Europe 
(Sanden 1996, 71), with c.121 individuals recovered 
from some 66 sites in Britain (Turner 1995, fig. 
46). Locations include intertidal areas, upland peat 
and blanket bog, lowland raised mires and fenland 
peats, with a marked absence of finds in southern 
England (ibid.) corresponding with the lack of peat 
formations here (Sanden 1996, fig. 24), though 
none has been found in the small areas of peat 
deposits in the south-west. The date of these finds 
covers a broad range from the Neolithic to the post- 
medieval period, those in Continental Europe 


14 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


appearing to form two concentrations, in the 
Neolithic and between 300 BC and AD 400 
(Sanden 1995.). In contrast, the British finds 
(Turner 1995) have concentrations in the Bronze 
Age (c.15), with about ten across the Iron Age to 
Romano-British period and one dated to the 7th 
century AD (Jubilee Tower, Lancaster); almost all 
the 16 Scottish examples are post-medieval. In 
general, a relative small proportion of these finds 
have been reliably dated, many having been found 
in the 19th and early 20th centuries. 

The posture of these ‘burials’ varies considerably 
(Sanden 1995 and 1996, 97) inciuding extended, 
flexed, supine, prone and ‘seated’. There are several 
cases in Europe where wood — posts, branches, twigs 
—has been recovered from over the body, below or 
adjacent to it (Sanden 1996, 99), two being in oak 
coffins. A large proportion of the bodies show no 
indication of clothing, though this cannot 
necessarily be taken to mean they were naked; traces 
of linen, for example, would be lost even in the 
anaerobic conditions of a bog (Sanden 1996). In 
c.20 cases there was evidence for mortal injury, for 
example by strangulation, stabbing or slitting of the 
throat, and the hair of several individuals appeared 
to have been shorn (ibid.). Immature and adult 
individuals, males and females are amongst those 
identified, but children are rare and males 
predominate (Sanden 1995). 

The major differences between the Lake burial 
and these other ‘watery graves’ are the date and 
location; the predominant date for the majority of 
these finds is pre-AD 400 or post-medieval and 
there are no records of burials on river-bank 
locations. To these observations must be added the 
caveat that most of the finds have come to light as 
the resuit of peat extraction, whilst river-bank or 
river valley activity is generally limited to pastoral 
agriculture. Burials in such locations were probably 
at greatest risk of disturbance during the 
construction of the water-meadow systems, though 
whether they would have been recorded or not is 
open to question. Similarly, the lack of secure dating 
of many of the bog burials and other lone graves 
may make the post-Roman date of the Lake burial 
appear more unusual that it really is. The body 
posture and associated presence of wood has 
similarities with some of the bog burials, but also 
with other more ‘conventional’ contemporaneous 
burials. There is no physical evidence of violence to 
the skeleton and the absence of artefacts cannot be 
taken as indicative of the woman being naked at 
the time of deposition, since the form of her dress 


may not have included any inorganic fastenings and 
organic fabrics would be unlikely to survive in these 
burial condition. 


Landscape Context 


The ritual significance of water and watery places 
to the ‘Celtic’ peoples is well attested (Magilton 
1995), with the veneration of pools, springs and 
lakes, which were viewed as liminal places forming 
entrances to and exits from the Otherworld. Votive 
deposits were commonly made at river crossings 
and wet places (Bradley 1990; Haselgrove 1996, 
76). Tacitus, in his Annales, makes reference to two 
German tribes who were at war over the control of 
a frontier river, their reason being that such locations 
were closest to heaven and the easiest place from 
which to communicate with the gods (Sanden 1996, 
174). Saxon cemeteries are noted for their location 
close to rivers (Eagles 1994) and it may be 
significant that the Avon apparently formed the 
western margins of Saxon expansion in the area in 
the 6th century, suggesting its importance as an 
interface between two groups of peoples set within 
what, even at the time, would have been recognised 
as a rich ritual landscape; the dry valley, at the 
eastern end ef which Lake lies, forms a direct route 
via Lake Bottom and Spring Bottom to Stonehenge 
Bottom through a landscape containing some of 
the densest concentrations of Bronze Age barrows 
in England (Figure 1; Woodward and Woodward 
1996, fig. 6). 

In addition to their ritual significance, the 
pragmatic importance of rivers — particularly the 
‘East/Wiltshire’ Avon — as highly significant 
communication and trade routes has been discussed 
by Sherratt (1996). Although the pre-eminence of 
the Avon river system as a Communication route is 
believed to have been in the Late Neolithic and 
Bronze Age (ibid.) it is likely to have maintained at 
least a provincial significance into later periods. 


Significance of the Burial to 
Participants 


The suggested reasons for the bog burials are 
various and partly dependent on date. Many of the 
prehistoric cases, particularly in Britain, appear to 
represent formal ‘burials’, though perhaps of a type 
not commonly seen (Sanden 1996, 177). The later 
medieval and post-medieval cases are generally 


A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 15 


accepted as the victims of accidents or perhaps 
muggings/murder (Turner 1995). Much of the 
focus of discussion lies with those bodies dated or 
presumed to date to the Iron Age/Roman period. 
Tacitus makes reference to a form of punishment 
in which ‘the coward, the shirker and the unnaturally 
vicious are drowned in miry swamps under a cover 
of wattle hurdles’ (Germania 12, trans. Mattingley 
1948). Evidence for shaven heads and individuals 
being stripped of clothing has been cited as 
supporting the punishment theory (Sanden 1995). 
The possible sacrificial, and/or implicit and explicate 
indications of ritualistic activity elicits the greatest 
interest. There are those who have argued (Briggs 
1995) that many of the supposed ‘ritual’ aspects of 
these deposits could be explained as failed attempts 
at rescue — the presence of ropes or wooden poles 
representing items thrown out as lifelines. Branches 
and poles could represent materials simply laid over 
graves to deter animal disturbance such as may be 
seen in some contemporary Central-Eastern 
European cemeteries (personal observation). 
However, Tacitus writes of human sacrifices in the 
‘Celtic’ regions though he does not state they were 
made into bogs; Magilton (1995, 186-7) gives 
reference to ritual drownings, and a document 
pertaining to Wulfran’s visit to Fresia in AD 690 
talks of two children bound to a stake on the beach 
to be engulfed by the sea in sacrifice for ‘the 
common good’ (Sanden 1995). 

Burial or sacrifice, the loan and liminal location 
of many of these deposits, and their association with 
water, suggests the individuals selected for such 
treatment were viewed as being in some way 
‘different’. They may have been considered as 
‘restless’ spirits who needed to be rendered harmless 
(Sanden 1995, 148), criminals, suicides, victims of 
violence or accident, or perhaps those with ‘special’ 
abilities. The singularity and mode — prone and 
covered — of the Lake burial strongly suggests this 
individual was ‘different’. The location, at a 
potentially interface between two cultures and ina 
spiritually liminail situation on the river bank — 1.e. 
both of ritual and possibly territorial significance 
(see above) — imply a deliberate choice in the place 
of burial. There is no evidence to suggest the woman 
was subject to physical violence or coerced into 
position; she was carefully buried in what were 
almost certainly waterlogged conditions adjacent 
to the river, and on its western bank in what, at this 
time, is likely to have been territory predominantly 
occupied by the indigenous population. The 
pronation of the body and presence of a heavy plank 


cover may signify an attempt to confuse the spirit 
and stop it wandering in ‘this’ world. However, if 
she had been buried in this situation as one who 
could communicate with the Otherworld it may be 
expected that the head be placed towards rather 
than away from the river. Whilst it cannot be 
categorically denied that she may have been 
‘sacrificed’, perhaps not unwillingly, she may also 
have died a natural death. Either way, she may have 
been seen as sufficiently ‘different’? — perhaps due 
to her possessing some particular skill — to 
necessitate special treatment and to represent one 
who was suitable to treat with the Otherworld on 
behalf of those in this world. 


THE REBURIAL 


The excavation of all human remains in Britain 
requires either a Church Faculty for remains buried 
in consecrated ground or a Home Office licence 
(Garratt-Frost 1992, McKinley and Roberts 1993), 
both of which will include some stipulation 
regarding the subsequent treatment of the remains. 
A recent survey of archaeological organisations in 
Britain (by the writer on behalf of the British 
Association of Biological Anthropology and 
Osteoarchaeology) showed that reburial of human 
remains over the past two years has only occurred 
where the burials were known to be Christian 
(medieval and post-medieval) and at the request 
of the Church who also comprised the client in 
almost all cases. The Home Office licence obtained 
for the Lake burial, in common with most, stated 
that ‘The remains shall, if of sufficient scientific 
interest, be conveyed to a museum for archival 
storage ...or they shall be conveyed to a place where 
burials may legally take place and there be 
reinterred’. 

The client was of the opinion that the human 
remains should, if possible, be returned to rest close 
to the original burial position and it was considered 
that, though the burial was clearly of significance, 
the skeletal remains were not of sufficient scientific 
interest to warrant archive storage in a museum. 
Consequently, following osteological examination 
and the production of a report, application was 
made to the Home Office to allow reburial. Initial 
discussion resulted in the statement that reburial 
close to the original location was not possible and 
that the remains would have to be reinterred in a 
‘legal burial place’ as was stipulated in part 2d of 


16 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


the Licence (see above). Further discussion sought 
to highlight how inappropriate it would be to rebury 
such ancient, clearly non-Christian remains in a 
modern cemetery and application was subsequently 
granted on condition of approval from the local 
Director of Housing and Health (Salisbury District 
Council) to confirm the burial would pose no risk 
to public health. 

The human remains were reburied in October 
1997 approximately 70m south of the original grave 
on an island in the newly constructed lake, it being 
impractical to rebury the woman in the same grave 
or in exactly the same manner in which she was 
originally interred. The remains were placed in a 
specially constructed wooden box made from local 
timber. A record of the location and nature of the 
reburial, together with known details of the original 
were placed in the county archives, with the deeds 
of the property and with the skeletal remains 
themselves. 

Licences for the removal of human remains 
(relating to non-Church property, see above) are 
granted to those who remove them (i.e. in such 
cases as this, the archaeological organisations) not 
the developer or client on whose behalf the 
investigations are being conducted. Consequently, 
the responsibility — legal and moral — for the care 
and appropriate treatment of such remains lies with 
the excavators. In addition to ensuring a sufficiently 
appropriate standard of osteological procedures and 
recording has been undertaken (information 
pertaining to which is also requested on application 
for a licence, often including the name of the 
appointed osteologist — in this case the writer), in 
the rare cases of reburial which may occur it is 
necessary to ensure an appropriate location is used, 
that physical packaging is of a standard which will 
maintain the integrity of the remains, and that any 
attendant rites and rituals followed during the 
reburial are appropriate to the date and probable 
beliefs of those being reburied as deduced from their 
archaeological context. In the latter, the probable 
beliefs of the dead are tantamount and should take 
precedence over those of the living who may not 
share the same beliefs. 


CONCLUSIONS 


The accidental discovery of this burial resulted from 
a rare intervention into the flood-plain alluvium of 
the Woodford valley. These deposits have rarely been 


subject to any archaeological investigation due to 
their situation and the associated type of landuse 
(i.e. not subject to ‘development’). Prior 
disturbance is likely to have been limited to the 
insertion of the water-meadow systems in the late 
17th and early 18th centuries when isolated deposits 
of this type, with no associated earthworks or 
artefacts to attract attention, are likely to have 
passed un-noticed or have been ignored. There is 
high potential for further archaeologically 
significant deposits along the Woodford valley 
bottom given the general ritual significance of rivers 
and of the surrounding landscape, and the apparent 
territorial importance of the Avon — or the Avon 
valley — as a boundary between the Saxon migrants 
and the existing population in the 5th-6th centuries 
AD.Whilst not necessarily under dispute, the valley 
may have represented an interface between the two 
cultures. 

The bodies currently known from ‘watery’ 
contexts clearly do not all fall into one category of 
deposit type. Each case needs to be assessed 
individually in terms of date, mode of deposition, 
associated features and artefacts and, as highlighted 
by the Lake burial, location. The date of individual 
deposits should not be assumed from such 
potentially misleading features as burial position, 
which is likely to have been at variance from the 
‘norm’ in such burials anyway. Whether the burial 
at Lake should be considered as a ‘bog-body’ is 
debatable, but it is hoped that this article has 
demonstrated that the significance of a burial is not 
defined by the accident of preservation. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Thanks are due to the client for funding the site 
investigations and the production of this report. The 
assistance of Mr. Stammers is also gratefully 
acknowledged. The project was managed by 
Antony Firth on behalf of Wessex Archaeology. 
The field survey was undertaken by Vaughan 
Birbeck and David Murdie, the latter also 
maintaining the watching brief in which the grave 
was initially identified. The excavation team 
comprised Antony Firth, Natasha Meader, 
Jacqueline I. McKinley and David Murdie. 
Contributors towards this report included Michael 
J. Allen (Sedimentary Analysis), Lorraine Mepham 
(Artefacts) and Karen Walker who initially compiled 
the archaeological background. The drawings were 
prepared for publication by Karen Nichols, while 
plates are by Elaine Wakefield. 


A WILTSHIRE ‘BOG BODY’?: A BURIAL IN THE WOODFORD VALLEY 17 


Bibliography 


ALDSWORTH, F.R., 1979, The Droxford Anglo-Saxon 
cemetery, Soberton, Hampshire. Proceedings of the 
Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 
35, 93-182. 

BARBER, B., and BOWSHER, D., 2000, The Eastern 
Cemetery of Roman London; Excavations 1983- 
1990. London: Museum of London Archaeological 
Services, Monograph 4 

BASS, W.M., 1987, Human Osteology. Missouri 
Archaeological Society 

BEEK, VAN G.C., 1983, Dental Morphology: an 
illustrated guide. Bristol: Wright PSG 

BRADLEY, R., 1990, The Passage of Arms. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press 

BRIGGS, C.S., 1995, Did They Fall or Were They 
Pushed? Some Unresolved Questions about Bog 
Bodies, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog 
Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives, 168- 
182. London: British Museum Press 

BROTHWELL, D.R., 1972, Digging Up Bones. London: 
British Museum Natural History 

COOK, A.M., and DACRE, M.W., 1985, Excavations at 
Portway, Andover 1973-1975. Oxford: Oxford 
University Archaeological Committee, Monograph 4. 

COWAN, M., 1982, Floated Water Meadows in the 
Salisbury Area. Salisbury: South Wiltshire Industrial 
Archaeology Society, Historical Monograph 9 

COX, P.W., 1988, A 7th century inhumation cemetery at 
Shepherd’s Farm, Ulwell, near Swanage, Dorset. 
Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and 
Archaeological Society 110, 37-47 

CRADDOCK, J., 1979, The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at 
Saxonbury, Lewes, East Sussex. Sussex 
Archaeological Collections 117, 85-102 

DAVIES, S.M., 1985, The Excavation of an Anglo-Saxon 
Cemetery (and Some Prehistoric Pits) at Charlton 
Plantation, near Downton. WANHM 79, 109-154 

DOWN, A., and WELCH, M., 1990, Chichester 
Excavations VII: Apple Down and The Mardens. 
Chichester: Chichester Council 

EAGLES, B., 1994, “The Archaeological Evidence for 
Settlement in the Fifth to Seventh Centuries AD’, in 
M. Aston and C. Lewis (eds), The Medieval 
Landscape of Wessex, 13-32. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

ENGLISH HERITAGE, Gazetteer of burials and 
cemetery sites in England. (Last update 1994) 

GARRATT-FROST, S., 1992, The Law and Burial 
Archaeology. London: IFA Technical Paper 11 

GREEN, C.S., 1984, Early Anglo-Saxon Burials at the 
‘Trumpet Major’ Public House, Allington Avenue, 
Dorchester. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural 
History and Archaeological Society, 106, 149-152 

HARMAN, M., MOLLESON, T.I., and PRICE, J.L., 
1981, Burials, bodies and beheadings in Romano- 
British and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. Bulletin British 


Museum Natural History (Geol) 35 (3), 145-188 

HASELGROVE, C., 1996, Iron Age Coinage: Recent 
Work, in T.C. Champion and J.R. Collis (eds), The 
Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, 67- 
85. Sheffield: University of Sheffield 

HEARNE, C.M., and BIRBECK, V., 1999, A35 
Tolpuddle to Puddletown Bypass DBFO, Dorset 
1996-8. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Reports 15 

HOGARTH, A.C., 1973, Structural Features in Anglo- 
Saxon Graves. Archaeological Journal 130, 104-119 

LEEDS, E.T., and SHORTT, H. de S., 1953, An Anglo- 
Saxon cemetery at Petersfinger, near Salisbury, Wilts. 
Salisbury: South Wilts and Blackmore Museum 

MAGILTON, J.R., 1995, Lindow Man: the Celtic 
‘Tradition and Beyond, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife 
(eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New 
Perspectives, 183-187. London: British Museum 
Press 

McKINLEY, J.I., 1994, The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at 
Spong Hill, North Elmham Part VIII: The 
Cremations. East Anglian Archaeology No. 69. 

McKINLEY, J.I. 1999, Excavations at Tinney’s Lane, 
Sherborne, Dorset. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural 
History and Archaeological Society 121, 53-68 

McKINLEY, J.1I., forthcoming, Archaeological 
Investigations at The Bostle, Bronze Age and Anglo- 
Saxon barrow cemeteries, Balsdean, East Sussex: 
1997. Sussex Archaeological Collections 

McKINLEY, J.I., and ROBERTS, C.A., 1993, Excavation 
and post-excavation treatment of cremated and 
inhumed human remains. London: IFA Technical 
Paper 13 

McMINN, R.M.H., and HUTCHINGS, R.T., 1985, A 
Colour Atlas of Human Anatomy. Wolfe Medical 
Publications 

McWHIRR, A., VINER, L., and WELLS, C., 1982, 
Romano-British Cemeteries at Cirencester. 
Cirencester: Cirencester Excavation Committee 

MOOK, W.G., 1986, Business meeting: recommen- 
dations/ resolutions adopted by the twelfth 
International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon 
28, 799 

MUSTY, J., and STRATTON, E.D., 1964, A Saxon 
Cemetery at Winterbourne Gunner, near Salisbury. 
WANHM 59, 86-109 

O FLOINN, R., 1995, Recent Research into Irish Bog 
Bodies, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog 
Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives, 123- 
132. London: British Museum Press 

OSGOOD, R., 1999, The Unknown Warrior? The Re- 
evaluation of a Skeleton from a Bell Barrow at Sutton 
Veny, Wiltshire. WANHM 92, 120-123 

PHILPOTT, R., 1991, Burial Practices in Roman Britain: 
a survey of grave treatment and furnishing AD 43- 
410. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British 
Series 219 

PIGGOTT, S., and PIGGOTT, C.M., 1944, Excavations 
of barrows on Crichel and Launceston Downs, 


18 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Dorset. Archaeologia 90, 47-80 

PUGH, R.B., (ed.) 1962, A History of Wiltshire Vol 6, 
The Victoria Histories of the Counties of England, 
213-221. University of London Institute of Historical 
Research 

RCHME 1979, Stonehenge And Its Environs. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press 

RICHARDS, J., 1990, The Stonehenge Environs Project. 
London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 10 

SANDEN, W.B. van der, 1995, Bog Bodies on the 
Continent: the Developments since 1965, with Special 
Reference to the Netherlands, in R.C. Turner and R.G. 
Scaife (eds), Bog Bodies; New Discoveries and New 
Perspectives, 146-167. London: British Museum Press 

SANDEN, W.B. van der, 1996, Through nature to 
eternity; The bog bodies of northwest Europe. 
Amsterdam: Batavian Lion International 

SHERRATT, A., 1996, Why Wessex? The Avon Route 
and River Transport in Later British Prehistory. 
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15 (2), 211-234 

TROTTER, M., and GLESER, G.C., 1952, Estimation 
of stature from long bones of American whites and 


Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 
10(4), 463-514 

TROTTER, M., and GLESER, G.C., 1958, A re- 
evaluation of estimation of stature bases on 
measurements of stature taken during life and of long 
bones after death. American Journal of Physical 
Anthropology 16(1), 79-123 

TURNER, R.C., 1995, Recent Research into British Bog 
Bodies, in R.C. Turner and R.G. Scaife (eds), Bog 
Bodies; New Discoveries and New Perspectives. 108- 
122. London: British Museum Press 

WAINWRIGHT, G.J.,; 1971, The excavation of 
prehistoric and Romano-British Settlements near 
Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, 1970. WANHM 66, 76- 
128. 

WELCH, M.G., 1983, Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex. Oxford: 
British Archaeological Reports, British Series 112 

WILSON, D. 1992 Anglo-Saxon Paganism. London 

WOODWARD, A.B., and WOODWARD, P.J. 1996, The 
‘Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze 
Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 
62, 275-292 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 19-25 


The Eyes and Ears of the Lord: Seventeenth- 
Century Manorial Stewards in South Wiltshire 


by J.H. Bettey 


The various functions performed by stewards (such as John and Leonard Snow of Downton) for their 
manorial lords are examined. These included estate management; the movement of livestock; legal disputes; 
opinions on personal matters; agricultural improvements such as the introduction of new crops and the 
creation of water meadows; the policing of tenants and cottagers, especially in connection with squatting 
on wasteland; and the management of parliamentary elections in the lord’s favour. Stewards in seventeenth- 
century South Wiltshire were of crucial importance, and far more formidable than non-resident landlords. 


In the parish church of Tormarton in 
Gloucestershire near the Wiltshire border, there is 
a large memorial to Gabriel Russell who died in 
1663, aged 88. For ninety years members of the 
Russell family had been stewards to the Marquess 
of Newcastle, and the inscription on the memorial 
gives an indication of the crucial position of a steward 
in managing the estate of a non-resident landlord. 


Here Gabriel Russell lies, whose watchful eyes 
Were William, Marquess of Newcastle’s spies. 

Over three parishes his onely hands 

Were here entrusted with his lordship’s lands. 

Full ninety yeares my father and I 

Were sarvants to that nobility. 

But all that knew them did them witness bare, 
Of their just dealing, loyalty and care. 

And for their comfort here below, 

One and twenty children could they show. 


The memorial emphasizes the importance of 
the steward as the landlord’s representative and his 
involvement in all aspects of manorial government. 
For non-resident landlords, preoccupied with other 
matters, reliable and trustworthy stewards were 
essential for the efficient management of large 
estates.! The survival of a number of account books 
and other records kept by seventeenth-century 


stewards in the district around Salisbury, provides 
evidence of the range of their concerns and of their 
importance in manorial and estate management. 
Some were gentlemen, such as Sir Walter Raleigh’s 
elder brother, Carew Raleigh (died 1626). He was 
the steward of various Duchy of Cornwall manors 
in Dorset and Wiltshire, including Mere during the 
reign of James I. He also possessed land of his own, 
and leased the rectory and tithes of Downton from 
the Bishop of Winchester.’ William Thynne, steward 
on the Longleat estate during the 1660s, was a 
kinsman of Sir James Thynne. Others were lawyers 
with small estates of their own, such as Henry 
Sherfield, a prominent Salisbury lawyer who was 
steward for the Earl of Salisbury’s estate on 
Cranborne Chase. He also owned land at 
Winterbourne Earls. Henry Sherfield’s brother, 
Richard, served as bailiff or under-steward on the 
Earl of Salisbury’s estates.’ Another owner of a small 
estate who was involved with the administration of 
some of the Cranborne estate, including the manor 
of Damerham, was Samuel Stillingfleet who lived 
near Cranborne.* 

Some stewards were affluent yeomen farmers, 
such as John Bennett of Motcombe who was 
steward on the widespread estates of the Arundell 
family of Wardour from 1663 to 1676.’ John Snow 


Clayley Cottage, Hunstrete, Pensford, Bristol BS39 4NX 


20 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


and his son, Leonard, who served as stewards on 
the Ashe family estate at Downton from 1665 to 
1727 were also prosperous farmers living at 
Loosehanger near Redlynch, south-east of 
Downton.° 

The salaries paid to stewards were often modest, 
but prestige of the office and the social status it 
conferred was a further reward, and, as will be 
shown, there were other opportunities for 
enrichment. John Bennett was paid £50 per annum 
by the Arundells, the Snows at Downton were paid 
£40 per annum for supervising all aspects of the 
estate on behalf of the non-resident Ashe family. Their 
account books and correspondence with members 
of the Ashe family show the range of their duties 
and the many ways in which they protected the 
landlord’s interests in Downton and the surrounding 
area, acting as the eyes and ears of the lord. 


I 
It was the involvement of John and Leonard Snow 
with the administration of Downton which 
produced the fullest and most informative series of 
records. Sir Joseph Ashe, who lived at Twickenham, 
was created a baronet by Charles II in 1669. In 
1665 he had leased the manor of Downton from 
the Bishop of Winchester, and he represented the 
borough of Downton in Parliament from 1662 to 
1681. Sir Joseph Ashe died in 1686, and his estates 
were left in the hands of his widow, Lady Mary 
Ashe, until their son Sir James Ashe succeeded in 
1698. Sir James Ashe died in 1734.’ Since the Ashe 
family did not reside at Downton, all aspects of 
estate management were entrusted to John Snow, 
and later after John’s death in 1698, to his son 
Leonard. Much of the work carried out by the 
Snows involved presiding over the manorial courts, 
granting of tenancies, copyholds and leases, 
resisting encroachments, ensuring compliance with 
manorial regulations and collecting rents and fines. 
Sending money to non-resident landlords was 
fraught with difficulty. The Snows took money to 
Twickenham themselves or entrusted it to various 
Salisbury tradesmen who were visiting London. 
Later in the seventeenth century the money was 
transferred by bills of exchange, many of them 
drawn on Hoare’s Bank. An alternative method 
employed was to purchase goods such as cattle, 
sheep or cheese for dispatch to London where they 
could be sold.* John Bennett was involved in 
collecting rents and fines from the Arundell manors 
in Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon and Somerset. He sent 
considerable sums to Lord Arundell in London by 


the regular carrier service, although the carriers 
charged large sums to insure against highwaymen 
and footpads. For example, in 1663 he sent £3000 
to London at the cost of £15; in 1677 it cost £4 
10s. Od. to send £900 to London. More frequently, 
however, John Bennett hired a coach and, 
accompanied by servants acting as guards, took the 
rents and other income to Lord Arundell in London 
himself. In 1663 he recorded expenditure of £25 
for coach hire, guards and expenses for two journeys 
to London.’ By 1670 the costs for coach, horses 
and guards, together with his own expenses, for 
journeys to London had risen to £26 10s. Od. 
Thomas Greene, steward to Sir John Nicholas, who 
possessed an estate around Gillingham and was MP 
for Shaftesbury during the last decade of the 
seventeenth century, adopted numerous informal 
arrangements to send rents to his master in London. 
He paid drovers, merchants, Shaftesbury tradesmen 
and other travellers to London for delivering sums 
of money to Sir John Nicholas.!° The regular carrier 
service was used to carry the Earl of Salisbury’s 
rents from Cranborne to Hatfield or to the Cecil 
family house in London. 

The Snows were also involved in sending cattle, 
sheep, cheese, apples and other goods to 
Twickenham for the use of the Ashe household. 
There are references to buying livestock, especially 
sheep, at numerous local markets and fairs, 
including Wilton, Salisbury, Ringwood and Weyhill. 
Cheese for dispatch to Twickenham was purchased 
from the cheese market at Marlborough and also 
from Somerset. In May 1692 John Snow bought 
two expensive black horses for Lady Mary Ashe’s 
coach. One came from Nicholas Moore of 
Durrington, the other from Henry Haitter of 
Witherington Farm, Downton. Each horse cost 


£18." 


II 
‘The Snows’ accounts include numerous references 
to their role as agents for supplying sheep to dealers 
around London. For example, in August 1690 
twenty ewes were purchased from John Doore of 
Stalbridge ‘warranted sound’ at 6s. 10d. apiece, and 
a further fourteen ewes ‘not warranted’ at 5s. Od. 
apiece. These were sent to John Robinson of Ham, 
Middlesex, and to John Gilles of Kempton Park. 
John Bennett sent beef, pigs, butter and fruit to 
Lord Arundell in London. His account book also 
records all sorts of miscellaneous expenditure for 
the Arundells. He paid keepers to take gifts of deer 
and swans to various local gentry. Gardeners were 


THE EYES AND EARS OF THE LORD: MANORIAL STEWARDS IN SOUTH WILTSHIRE 21 


paid for planting fruit trees at Wardour and Ansty. 
In 1668 Lord Shaftesbury’s coachman at Wimborne 
St Giles was given 2s. 6d. ‘for showing my Lord 
Arundell the way to Lulworth Castle’. He also paid 
a farmer 5s. 0d. when one of his sheep was killed 
by Lord Arundell’s dog. On 29 May 1670, ‘Oak 
Apple Day’, when the Restoration of Charles II was 
commemorated, the celebrations involved many 
expenses. The bowling green keeper at Shaftesbury 
was given 2s. 0d.; the keepers and ‘the servants of 
the house’ were rewarded; the “Hare finder’ was paid 
5s. Od. ‘when you killed a brace of hares’ and a 
further 1s. Od. ‘for playing the Knave’. In 1675 the 
steward spent £1 16s. 8d. for black cloth to hang 
around the chancel at Tisbury when Lady Arundell 
was buried, and on black cloth for the Minister who 
conducted the service. '” 

Stewards were frequently involved in law suits 
in defence of their masters’ interests. Such suits, 
with the inevitable fees and ‘sweetners’, could be 
expensive. For example, in 1677 John Bennett was 
concerned with a case at Salisbury Assizes over an 
unspecified suit described as ‘Mr Vaughan’s 
business’. The expenses came to nearly £200, and 
included the following: ‘Paid 17 of the Jury men 
and the Sheriffe in all 18, to each of them 5 guineas, 
the whole 90 guineas at £1 1s. 8d. per guinea make 
£97 10s. 0d’. 

The range of John Bennett’s concerns, covering 
all aspects of estate management for the Arundells, 
from care of house, household and garden to all 
the minutiae of manorial government, illustrates 
how indispensable a trustworthy steward was to his 
lord. Bennett was evidently trusted completely by 
Lord Arundell. Interestingly, although he was 
employed by a leading Catholic family, Bennett 
remained staunchly Protestant, calling his 
daughters by the Puritan names of Patience and 
Repentance, although he christened one of his sons 
Arundell. Occasionally stewards were called upon 
to deal with matters requiring great delicacy, such 
as involvement in marriage negotiations. In 1699 
when Sir John Nicholas was anxious for his son to 
marry, he entrusted his steward, Thomas Greene, 
with the task of encouraging the young man and of 
suggesting suitable brides for him. Likewise, in 1695 
Lady Mary Ashe consulted her steward, John Snow, 
about a possible marriage. She wrote: 


I have a grand-daughter of £3000 fortune, very 
Handsome, Good Humour, and the best Huswife and 
manager I ever saw, and would Look no where else 
for my sonn, if weare Not so near a kin. 


Snow’s opinion was sought on the suitability of 
‘young Mr Goole’, and he was asked to send 
particulars of this possible bridegroom: ‘give me your 
oppinion of it [the match] and what estate he has’."* 

An additional source of income for landlords is 
illustrated in the accounts kept by John and Leonard 
Snow. They lived at Loosehanger where Sir Joseph 
Ashe possessed a large park and considerable 
woodland. The grazing in the park was let to ‘cow- 
keepers’ and the accounts record their names and 
the number of cattle in detail. Likewise, pigs were 
allowed into the woodland during the autumn 
months to fatten on the acorns and beech nuts. 
Owners were charged from 6d. to 1s. 0d. per week 
for each pig, although ls. 6d. a week was charged 
for a few ‘great pigges’. With so much money passing 
through their hands in rents, fines, timber sales and 
miscellaneous manorial dues, there were numerous 
perfectly legal opportunities for stewards to make 
temporary use of it to enrich themselves. The best 
examples of this come from the account books of 
John Bennett. Although his annual salary as a 
steward was no more than £50, Bennett was lending 
large sums at interest to many people. Evidently he 
was well-known as a money lender, and his dealings 
ranged from Bristol to the south coast. He lent Lord 
Arundell various sums, including £1,000 in 1665, 
while other loans ranged from £800 to £20. Some 
were to relatives, such as ‘my brother, Anthony 
£000’, or ‘my sister Barren £300’. Other loans were 
to Arundell tenants to cover arrears of rent. All were 
charged 6% per annum. His complex financial 
affairs and long lists of loans fill many pages of his 
account book. Henry Sherfield, the Salisbury lawyer 
who was steward to the Earl of Salisbury, also had 
an extensive money-lending business. His clients 
ranged from Lady Weld of Lulworth Castle to the 
poor of Salisbury, and he generally charged 8% per 
year.” 


Il 
Through their stewards many seventeenth-century 
landlords encouraged the introduction of new crops 
and better farming methods. Improved stock and 
increased yields meant that tenants could afford 
higher rents for their farms. Thus Henry and 
Richard Sherfield, steward and under-steward to 
the Earl of Salisbury for his Cranborne estate 
actively promoted the growing of woad by their 
tenants. In particular they supervised the conversion 
to arable of a large area of downland at Blagdon 
Hill between Pentridge and Martin. This was 
divided into small plots and let to tenants for 


22 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


growing the profitable but labour-intensive woad. 
Henry Sherfield himself set an example by growing 
large crops of woad on his own land at 
Winterbourne Earls. One of his letters still has 
attached to it a sample of cloth dyed with his woad 
and retaining its attractive soft, blue colour.'® Henry 
Sherfield was also interested in introducing other 
new crops. He sent his step-son, George Bedford, 
to the Low Countries to obtain roots of madder, 
and seeds of rape and cole for cultivation in 
England, and his account book contains references 
to the cultivation of sainfoin, vetches, grasses, peas 
and different varieties of corn.'’ John Bennett’s 
accounts show that he encouraged enclosures, 
drainage and improved woodland management. 
Evidence for improved farming comes from the 
account book for the Arundell demesne farm at 
Ansty, covering the years 1694 to 1706, which 
contains numerous references to sowing recently- 
introduced fodder crops such as French grass or 
‘sainfoin’, vetches, rye grass, hop clover and peas.'® 
Bennett’s account book also includes references to 
woodland management, planting saplings, coppice 
work, and the sale of timber, faggots, charcoal, 
hurdles and rakes. In particular, he took a close 
interest in the estate woodland at Hooke near 
Donhead St Andrew and Castle Ditches near 
Swallowcliffe. Sales of timber, oak bark for tanning 
and logs for firewood were an important source of 
income for landlords. The Snows regularly sold 
wood from Downton and Loosehanger to charcoal 
burners, and there are many references in their 
accounts to the income from ‘colewood’. The 
correspondence of Thomas Greene, steward at 
Gillingham to Sir John Nicholas, is full of references 
to the woodland. He was constantly concerned to 
protect the woods from cottagers desperate for 
firewood, and to preserve the young trees from the 
inroads of sheep and cattle. 

The most remarkable example of the 
encouragement of new husbandry practice comes 
from the manor of Downton. Starting in 1665 the 
steward, John Snow, presided over an elaborate and 
expensive scheme for watering meadows all along 
the Avon valley. His plan was not finally completed 
until the 1690s, and involved taking water from the 
Avon near Alderbury, and the creation of a new 
channel along the side of the valley to Downton, a 
distance of some three miles. From this main 
channel water was supplied to the manorial farms 
at Witherington, Standlynch, Barford and New 
Court. This remarkable and expensive project 
involved not only the creation of the water courses, 


but also the building of hatches, channels and 
drains, levelling and ensuring the flow of water over 
the meadows, making of bridges, paying 
compensation to millers, commoners and owners 
of fishing rights. The scheme involved John Snow 
in a great deal of work and bargaining. The eventual 
cost was more than £2000, and Snow wrote to Sir 
Joseph Ashe in 1674 explaining why the work ‘came 
to nere duble the expense as was at first proposed’. 
He mentioned the difficulty of getting the levels 
right, the cost of additional hatches, the expense of 
bringing gravel to improve the drainage, and the 
necessity of building bridges along the towpath for 
bargemen and their horses using the canal or 
‘navigation’ from Salisbury. He went on, however, 
to point out the value of the early grass produced 
by the water meadows, the improvement the 
increased supply of fodder for winter feeding would 
bring, and the fact that 194 acres of meadow which 
had been worth £218 per year were now worth 
£428. If they could not be let for this sum, John 
Snow undertook to rent them himself.!” 

All the complex negotiations for creating the 
water meadows along the Avon above Downton fell 
entirely upon John Snow. One part of the scheme 
alone required 41 agreements to be made with 
landowners, tenants and millers, for rights to make 
water courses, and install stone hatches, 
compensation for disturbance to commoners and 
those entitled to the herbage who were described 
by John Snow as ‘the Earbidgers of Alderbury’. The 
use of water for each meadow had also to be agreed; 
the periodic winter watering beginning on 1 
November and ending on 6 March, and the brief 
summer watering to be during the period 3 May to 
25 May each year. It must have required great 
enthusiasm and skilful diplomacy on the part of 
the steward to bring such complex negotiations to 
a successful conclusion. The series of letters from 
Sir Joseph Ashe shows that he took a close interest 
in the progress of the scheme and was a regular 
critic, but he did not handle the arrangements 
himself. He obviously placed great trust in John 
Snow, but nonetheless complained constantly over 
the costs. For example, in March 1677 he wrote 
from London to John Snow: ‘I thinke this Cursed 
Wateringe hath given me 10 tymes the trouble that 
all the other concernes of my life hath done...’ Again 
in April 1678 he wrote: 


...When you will consider the perpetual trouble and 
constant laying out of money, and noe coming in, 
you need not wonder I am sicke of those designs and 


THE EYES AND EARS OF THE LORD: MANORIAL STEWARDS IN SOUTH WILTSHIRE 23 


let other men fall into my circumstances and they 
will be as weary as my selfe. But those that enjoy a 
profitt and quiett may be ever content, and when that 
tyme comes, soe will I.*° 


There are few better examples of the high capital 
cost of creating water meadows, and of their value 
in improving agricultural productivity. Interestingly, 
in most places where water meadows were 
developed along the downland valleys during the 
seventeenth century, their main purpose was to 
provide early feed for the sheep flocks; at Downton, 
however, where nearby Salisbury provided a ready 
market for milk and butter, the meadows were 
valued as providing early grass and an abundant 
hay crop for the milking cows. In 1676 John Snow 
summarised the advantages which water meadows 
would bring as follows: 


1. There would be a great increase in crops of hay. 

2. Men could keep more sheep and cattle. 

3. There would be an increase in corn and grass for 
fattening cattle and for butter and cheese.”! 


IV 

With so much power over all aspects of manorial 
life delegated to the stewards, and so much money 
passing through their hands, it was inevitable that 
there should be criticism and complaint. An 
anonymous letter received by Humphrey Weld at 
Lulworth Castle in 1706 protested that the steward 
was acting ‘contrary to all rules of Christianity and 
Honesty’. The writer concluded: ‘.. . he will make 
you a poore Lord and himself a rich steward’.*? A 
century earlier, Sir Carew Raleigh had been 
dismissed as steward of the Duchy of Cornwall 
manors in Dorset and Wiltshire when an enquiry 
found that he had been taking bribes from the 
tenants in return for granting copyhold leases for 
very low entry fines.” 

Complaints of a different kind were made 
against Richard Sherfield, under-steward of the 
Cranborne estate. In 1623 several tenants at 
Cranborne and Damerham wrote to the Earl of 
Salisbury at Hatfield House to protest against 
Sherfield’s actions. Having been appointed to his 
post in 1620, Sherfield had begun an enthusiastic 
campaign to maintain the Earl’s rights in his manors 
and to prevent the encroachments and 
infringements of which the tenants were guilty. 
Sherfield’s legal attempts to preserve and increase 

- the Earl’s profits provoked a storm of criticism. The 
Earl was anxious to preserve good relations with 
his tenants, maintain his political influence in the 


locality, and act in a benevolent manner consistent 
with his wealth and status. He therefore appointed 
a commission to inquire into Sherfield’s actions. 
Although the commissioners found nothing illegal, 
they reported that Sherfield’s proceedings were: 
‘directly opposite to your truly noble disposition 
by pressing and enforcing such strict penalties and 
lawquirkes, that he hath justly drawne on him the 
hate and ill opinion of that parte of the country’. 
Notwithstanding Sherfield’s diligent regard for the 
Earl’s interests, he was sacked from his post. His 
fate illustrates the tight-rope which a steward had 
to traverse in maintaining good relations with both 
landlord and tenants.*! Particularly difficult for 
stewards to deal with were the substantial and well- 
connected freehold tenants on each manor. The 
complaints about Richard Sherfield at Cranborne 
had been led by Thomas Hooper of Boveridge, whe 
as well as a freehold estate also leased many of the 
demesne lands of Cranborne. Richard Sherfield’s 
insistence on the Earl’s rights had quickly provoked 
protests from Hooper, whom Sherfield referred to 
as ‘the old devil who lives on the hill at Boveridge’. 
As steward of Damerham, Samuel Stillingfleet faced 
a barrage of criticism in 1638 from Denzil Holles, 
a younger son of the Earl of Clare. Through his 
wife Holles had acquired the tenancy of a house 
and land on the Earl of Salisbury’s estate at 
Damerham. As his political career showed, Holles 
was a proud, passionate and quick-tempered man, 
and when Stillingfleet delivered to him a letter 
complaining that he had cut down timber and 
committed other misdemeanours at Damerham he 
reacted furiously. He complained bitterly to the Earl 
of Salisbury that the style and content of the letter 
failed to appreciate his rank: ‘for beginning, middle 
and end, inside and outside, are all below me’. He 
claimed that the timber had been necessary to repair 
the property, ‘a rotten house not fit for a gentleman 
to live in’, and totally refused ‘to run to your officer 
in Cranborne, or I know not where, to beg a tree 
and tarry his pleasure to assign it to me’. 
Stillingfleet’s response to this onslaught is unknown, 
but it is clear that he was no match for a man so 
conscious of his rank and position as Holles.” 
Dealing with cottagers, paupers, poachers and 
squatters on the woodland, waste and common land 
of manors also presented intractable problems for 
stewards. Thomas Greene at Gillingham had 
constant difficulty in defending the woods of his 
master, Sir John Nicholas, from depredation by 
wood-stealers and poachers. Likewise, the stewards 
at Longleat had enormous difficulty in defending 


24 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


the woods from thieves, and the deer, hares, rabbits 
and game birds from poachers.”° 

At Downton, where there were large areas of 
waste and common in the east of the parish, John 
and Leonard Snow were concerned about the 
number of poor families who illegally took up 
residence there. In 1695 John Snow wrote to Lady 
Mary Ashe at Twickenham stating: 


There are in the whole of Downton waste above 100 
cottages besides many small enclosures. . . Every 
summer enlarges the number of cottages and 
encroachments, so that some effectual course must 


be taken at great Expense to stop these proceedings. 


In 1698 Snow reported how a group of people 
attempted to erect a timber-framed house on the 
common at Downton in spite of his warnings. 
Clearly, this was little more than a hovel, to be 
erected overnight in the mistaken but widely-held 
belief that such subterfuge conferred a legal title. 
Six men were to be involved in erecting the 
structure, the owner, a carpenter, his apprentice, a 
thatcher, a plasterer, and a man who was to dig the 
holes for securing the flimsy edifice to the earth. 

Snow’s response to the influx of paupers was to 
apply to the justices for licence to demolish the 
illegal dwellings. The fact that such requests were 
often granted is evident from the references to 
‘plucking downe the Cottages’ which appear in 
Snow’s accounts. An example occurs as early as 
1670, when John Snow applied to the justices in 
Salisbury for ‘pulling downe John Moore’s cottage 
on the waste within the manor of Downton’. The 
considerable costs included bringing John Moore 
to court, rewards to lawyers, court officials and 
witnesses. Finally, in 1672 the following payments 
were made concerning John Moore’s house: 


8 May 1672 Paid John Eastman and Thomas Hatcher 
for helpinge to pull downe the materialls 2s. 8d. 
John Browne for cuminge to carry away the materials 
1s. 6d. 


Such actions, however, provoked widespread 
condemnation. There were petitions to Lady Mary 
Ashe at Twickenham, to the Bishop of Winchester 
and to the justices in Salisbury. In 1694 a freeholder, 
Benjamin Wyche, wrote to Lady Mary Ashe 
deploring the fact that it was intended to ‘turne 
out a great many poor Creatures out of the small 
Cottages built upon Downton waste’. He urged 
Lady Mary not to listen to the advice of John Snow, 
‘who is little moved with the Cryes of the poore 
where a little small interest is concerned’. The 


churchwardens and overseers of the poor of 
Downton also wrote desiring that the poor might 
be allowed to remain, ‘beinge poore persons within 
our said parish and want houses for their 
habitation’ .*’ 


V 

In addition to their other duties, stewards were also 
expected to play their part in securing the return of 
their master to Parliament at borough elections. 
They reported gossip, kept him abreast of local 
events and did their best to retain the support of 
local voters. Unlike Old Sarum, whose 
representatives in Parliament were little troubled 
by electors, Downton had more than 100 men who, 
by occupying particular tenements, qualified as 
burgesses and possessed a vote. Sir Joseph Ashe 
seldom came to Downton, but he was at pains to 
secure the gratitude and votes of the burgesses by 
supporting local charities and by his concern for 
the welfare of the borough. Accordingly, he had 
founded a school in Downton, and in 1676 obtained 
the grant of two annual fairs, to be held on 12 April 
and 21 September each year.*® 

With so many voters, he depended upon John 
Snow to keep their goodwill and ensure their 
continued support. He was keen to be kept 
informed of local affairs, gossip and opinions. In 
1680 when there was a rumour in Downton that 
Sir Joseph had not attended many sessions of 
Parliament, he wrote a letter for Snow to take to 
every elector. Addressed to ‘My lovinge friends the 
Burgesses of the Borough of Downton’, the letter 
justified his absence from Parliament on the 
grounds that there had been little business of any 
importance to discuss.” 

The trust which the Ashe family reposed in John 
Snow over political affairs at Downton is illustrated 
by a letter of Sir James Ashe concerning a by- 
election in 1698: 


One of your members of Parliament is dead. I here 
have sent down my man post to let you know that I 
would stand to be chosen either this or the ensuing 
parliament. Pray let me know what interest you can 
make and if you think fit I will come down presently 
and stand. Pray see about and make what friends 
you can.” 


At Shaftesbury Thomas Greene distributed beef or 
money to the poor at Christmas on behalf of the 
MP, Sir John Nicholas. He also contributed 
generously to local charities. When Sir John 
Nicholas retired in 1701 and was succeeded as MP 


THE EYES AND EARS OF THE LORD: MANORIAL STEWARDS IN SOUTH WILTSHIRE 25 


for Shaftesbury by his son,Edward, Thomas Greene 
took the new member to call on all the burgesses 
who had voted for him.’! 

The role of a steward as election agent, and the 
expense involved in securing votes, can be illustrated 
from the accounts kept by John Snow at Downton 
during the election of 1670. The election was called 
for 15 December 1670, and the campaign to obtain 
votes started a month earlier. Dinners were provided 
for voters at local inns, and the costs included wine, 
ale, tobacco, oysters, venison, turkey, cheese and 
fruit. No delicacy was denied to the voters, and there 
are references in the accounts to Canary wine, 
claret, burnt claret, white wine, oranges, and even 
to ‘two dozen larks’. Even the poor in the borough 
received charity, although they did not have a vote. 
On election day, dinner was provided for 160 men 
at a cost of £12 17s. Od. The total cost of the 
hospitality provided for voters by John Snow came 
to nearly £200.The expenditure was not in vain, 
and Sir Joseph Ashe was duly returned as member 
of Parliament for the borough of Downton.” 


In conclusion, the evidence concerning the varied 
activities of seventeenth-century stewards in the 
Salisbury area amply demonstrates their crucial 
importance in estate management. For most tenants 
of the major landowners whose properties covered 
so much of the west country, the ever-present, 
vigilant steward was a much more formidable figure 
than the non-resident landlord. A trustworthy 
steward, with a careful eye to all aspects of his 
master’s business, treading a delicate path so as not 
to alienate the major tenants, was indispensable for 
the functioning of great estates and manorial 
government during the seventeenth century. 


References 


' D.R. Hainsworth, Stewards, Lords and People, 1992. 

2 Public Record Office, E123/28 fol. 358; E178/2457. R. 
Hoyle, The Estates of the English Crown 1558-1640, 
1992, 178, 209-10; E. Kerridge, “The Movement of 
Rent 1540-1640’, Economic History Review, 2nd 
Series, 6, 1953, 32. 

> J.H. Bettey, ‘Henry Sherfield of Salisbury’ Hatcher 
Review, 9, 1980, 19-27; Hampshire Record Office, 
44M69/XLIV/16-18 Henry Sherfield’s Accounts 

4 J.H. Bettey, ‘Manorial Stewards and the Conduct of 
Manorial Affairs’, Dorset Natural History & 
Archaeological Society Proceedings, 115, 1993, 15- 
19; see also J. Chandler, Endless Street, 1983, 169, 
201-4; L. Stone, Family and Fortune, 1973, 126-9. 


The information concerning Stillingfleet, the Sherfield 
family, and the administration of the Cranborne estate 
is derived from Cranborne Accounts 1611-59, 
Hatfield House, especially General 18/26, 27/8, 83/ 
22, 88/24. 88/26 and Legal 234/17. 

> Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, 750/1; 413/507- 
10, Accounts of John Bennett. 

®° W.S.R.O. 490/842; 490/909-12, Accounts and 
Correspondence of John and Leonard Snow. 

7 Victoria County History, Wiltshire, XI, 1980, 24, 29, 
41. 

8 W.S.R.O. 490/842. 

° W.S.R.O. 750/13 413/507-10. 

'0 John Rylands Library, Manchester, Letters from 
Thomas Greene of Gillingham to Sir John Nicholas 
1698-1701. Photocopies in Dorset Record Office. 

WS R.O. 490/842. 

12, W.S.R.O. 413/507. 

5 W.S.R.O. 413/509 

4 W.S.R.O. 490/909. 

' W.S.R.O. 490/842; 750/1; 1946/Box 12 (5); Hampshire 
Record Office, Henry Sherfield’s Account Book 44/ 
M69/XXV. 

'o H.R.O. 44/M69/XXX/76. 

'7 J.H. Bettey, “The Cultivation of Woad in the Salisbury 
Area during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth 
Centuries’, Textile History, 9, 1978, 112-117. 

18 W.S.R.O. 2667/12/97 Ansty Farm Accounts 1694- 
1706. I am grateful to Steven Hobbs for drawing my 
attention to this source. 

'° For an account of the creation of water meadows and 
their importance in seventeenth-century farming see 
J.H. Bettey, “The Development of Water Meadows in 
the Southern Counties’, in H. Cook & T. Williamson 
eds., Water Management in the English Landscape, 
1999, 179-95. The creation of the elaborate system 
of water meadows above Downton produced a mass 
of documentation. See especially W.S.R.O. 490/756- 
7; 490/890; 490/903-12; 1946/Box 12 (5) (10). VCH 
Wilts. XI, 1980, 71-7. 

20 W.S.R.O. 490/909. 

21 W.S.R.O. 490/890; 490/896. 

22 Dorset Record Office D/WLC/E12. 

3 Public Record Office E123/28/fol. 358; E178/2457. 

*4 For detailed references to this affair see J.H. Bettey, 
‘Henry Sherfield of Salisbury’ Hatcher Review, 9, 
1980, 19-27. 

2 The correspondence between Denzil Holies and the 
Earl of Salisbury over this dispute is summarised in 
Calendar of State Papers (Domestic), Vol. 393, 1638, 
55, and Vol. 400, 1638-8, 2. 

20 D.R. Hainsworth, op.cit., 208-15. 

27 W7.S.R.O. 490/909; 490/925; 490/932. 

8 VCH Wilts., XI, 1980, 24, 29, 41. 

29 W.S.R.O. 490/909. 

30 Ibid:. 

31 —D.R. Hainsworth, op.cit., 154. 

32, W.S.R.O. 1946/Box 12 (5) (10). 


t 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


‘hat > ' 
(2661 Aeus0D 402) 


‘wooe 


seousjep 
UBWOY 2}e7] 


PAV A RAE rr ne Dees REE SN Aer 


RC aunt 


me 
praesent tay 


—— 


(z'614 98s) 
yOuss} UOIJEAPOXA 


QO sesjew ul sino}UOD \ - 
ee 


syrewdoig 


sBuipjing uewoYy 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 26-32 


Excavation of Roman Features and Deposits on 
the Outskirts of Cunetio (Mildenhall), 


Marlborough, in 1997 
by Nicholas Cooke 


with contributions by Moira Laidlaw and Jacqueline I. McKinley 


Evidence of Roman occupation to the west of the Roman small town of Cunetio was revealed in 1997 
along the line of a sewer pipeline. Early Roman features were located on both sides of a large, possibly 
defensive, ditch, but were concentrated to the west where they included ditches, pits and postholes, as well 
as two graves forming part of a larger cemetery. Fewer later Roman features were revealed, including an 


urned cremation burial. 


In 1997 Wessex Archaeology undertook a 
programme of archaeological works, comprising 
excavations and a watching brief, in advance of the 
construction of a new sewer pipeline at Mildenhall, 
near Marlborough. The work was commissioned 
and funded by Thames Water Utilities. The 
proposed pipeline ran for approximately 910m on 
the south side of the River Kennet, from OS Grid 
Ref. SU 2151 6958 at its northeast end to SU 2069 
6914 at its southwest end (Figure 1). At its northeast 
end it lay within c. 30m of the Roman small town 
of Cunetio. 


BACKGROUND 


The extent of the Roman small town of Cunetio is 
known primarily through the interpretation of aerial 
photographs, there having been very little 
archaeological excavation, although much of the 
evidence of its origin and development has recently 
been collated (Corney 1997). Pre-Roman 
settlement in the area is thought to have focused 
on the univallate enclosure at Forest Hill and its 


associated earthworks, c. 1km to the southwest, 
which may have acted as the focus for a late Iron 
Age oppidum. The enclosure was subsequently 
occupied in the Roman period by a winged corridor 
‘villa’. 

The exact date of the origin of Cunetio is 
uncertain, although limited excavations have 
demonstrated occupation from the second half of 
the Ist century AD onwards. It has been suggested 
that the initial occupation of the site may have been 
military in character (Corney 2001), with a post- 
Conquest fort controlling the river crossing, 
although no traces of a fort have been identified on 
aerial photographs. There is good photographic 
evidence, however, for two successive defensive 
circuits for the town, along with a number of 
buildings and a street grid. The earlier earthen 
defences formed a double ditched enclosure of some 
6ha, and may be of 2nd or 3rd century AD date. 
The later defensive circuit, dated by excavation to 
after c. AD 360, consisted of a substantial stone 
wall with projecting bastions, although its position 
appears to show little regard for the extant street 
system or the line of the earlier defences (Burnham 
and Wacher 1990, 150). 


Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, SP4 6EB 


28 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Aerial photographs reveal extensive cropmark 
evidence for occupation to the west of the town in 
the form of roads, possible enclosures, buried walls 
and possible buildings (Cox 1997). Although these 
cropmarks could not be traced in Plots 1-3 (Figure 
1), any features in these fields, which all slope steeply 
down to the river, may have been masked by 
colluvial and alluvial action. 

Excavations in 1951 identified a late Iron Age 
or early Roman inhumation cemetery in Plot 3, 
with associated artefacts of 1st century AD date 
(Meyrick 1955). Seven of the burials were aligned 
east-to-west, four of them being flexed. The 
eighth, a prone burial, was aligned north-to- 
south. Although their exact locations were not 
reported, the cemetery was described as being 
‘low and quite near the present course of the 
Kennet, with a brook only about 20 yards away’ 
(ibid, 20). 


METHODOLOGY 


A two-stage programme of archaeological works 
was undertaken, emphasis being placed on 
establishing the location of important deposits, and 
the targeted excavation and recording of those 
threatened with disturbance. 

The first stage involved the stripping and 
excavation of the area of the highest archaeological 
potential — some 310m of the pipeline route, 
incorporating Plots 1, 2 and 3. Topsoil was stripped 
under close archaeological supervision from a 
1.6m wide trench to the surface of the 
archaeological remains. In Plot 1, this involved the 
excavation of a considerable depth of modern 
‘made ground’ overlying alluvial deposits and 
gravels, while in Plots 2 and 3 the subsoil deposits 
above chalk ranged from 0.2m to 1m in depth, 
generally increasing in depth from east to west. 
All archaeological features were defined, planned 
and recorded, and those threatened by the 
proposed course of the pipeline were sample 
excavated in order to establish their form, function 
and date. All human remains were fully excavated. 
Excavation ceased at 1.2m below ground level, the 
installation depth of the pipe. 

The entire remaining length of pipeline not 
subjected to archaeological excavation was 
monitored during topsoil stripping and subsequent 
trenching, but no archaeological deposits or features 
were identified during this stage. 


RESULTS 


Plot 1 


Plot 1 lies immediately adjacent to the present 
course of the River Kennet. Topsoil stripping 
revealed a relatively intact sequence of deposits. A 
light-medium grey silty clay and a medium grey 
silt, both containing modern pottery and ceramic 
building material, overlay a thick band of dark grey 
fine silty clay containing quantities of Roman 
pottery, animal bone, driftwood and roof tile. This 
in turn overlay an unsorted gravel in an orange silty 
clay matrix, which may represent a decalcified 
solifluction deposit of the last glaciation. Although 
archaeological remains were recovered from these 
deposits, none was demonstrably in situ, and their 
matrices were consistent with either having been 
lain down or truncated by a change in the course 
of the river. 


Plots 2 and 3 


These plots lay on the lower slopes of the valley 
immediately above the bluff of the floodplain. A 
number of archaeological features were identified, 
excavated and recorded in both plots, although 
there was a concentration towards the west of Plot 
3 (Figure 2). Most date to the early Roman period 
(1st and 2nd centuries AD), although a few later 
Roman and medieval features were also recorded. 


Early Roman (Ist and 2nd centuries AD) 

The dominant feature of the early Roman period 
was ditch 43, running northwest-southeast. It was 
9.8m wide at the top, and although excavated to a 
depth of only 1.2m, auguring indicated a depth of 
at least 2.4m.The upper part of its profile was sealed 
by accumulations of ploughsoil that had migrated 
downslope, slumping into the in-filled ditch. This 
contained significant quantities of lst and 2nd 
century AD Roman pottery, with a smaller 
proportion of 3rd century AD pottery. It also 
contained a very small copy of a 4th century AD 
coin, bearing heavily stylised lettering and 
engraving. 

The upper fill of the ditch proper, which 
contained pottery dating to the 2nd and 3rd 
centuries AD, consisted of a spread, 7.2m wide and 
up to 0.15m deep, of charcoal and burnt material, 
including charred plant remains (mainly grain). This 
material also yielded a carbonised wooden pin 


EXCAVATION OF ROMAN FEATURES AND DEPOSITS ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF CUNETIO, 1997 29 


Key: 
@ 1st-—2nd century AD 
@ 3rd-4th century AD 
B@ Medieval 


aie 
ae Z| Pict? 


Old pipe aN Lt 
7 
(fs 


2S. 


Fig. 2. Archaeological features in Plots 2 and 3 


30 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


(Figure 3), its head formed by two simple notches 
on either side of the circular shaft which tapered 
towards the missing tip. The origin of this burnt 
material is unclear. It sealed a much deeper 
secondary fill containing pottery of lst and 2nd 
century AD date. The underlying layer of re- 
deposited chalk rubble, filling much of the eastern 
half of the ditch, contained considerably fewer finds, 
although of a similar date range. The rubble may 
have derived from a chalk-built rampart to the east 
of the ditch that was subsequently used to backfill 
the ditch. 


0 50mm 
Sea 


Fig. 3. (1) Complete Black Burnished ware cremation 
vessel, pit 14, (2) carbonised wooden pin, ditch 43 


Four features excavated to the northeast of ditch 
43 may date to the Ist and 2nd centuries AD. The 
most substantial was well 35, which was c. 4m across 
with vertical sides. The earliest recorded fill, a silty 
loam, appeared to represent a circular shaft in the 
centre of the well. After the well had gone out of use 
it had been backfilled with sarsen boulders and flint 
nodules. Both fills contained pottery of the Ist and 
2nd centuries AD. No traces of a timber or stone 
lining were identified within the depth excavated. 

Pit 21, the earliest in pit group 158, was 2.4m 
in diameter, 0.6m deep and contained ten sherds 
of lst and 2nd century AD pottery. Pits 40 and 42, 
which lay outside the line of the pipeline at the 
northeastern end of the trench and were therefore 
not excavated, yielded small quantities of pottery 


of a similar date from their surfaces. (As sherds of 
this date were often recovered from later contexts 
and features, the early dates for pits 40 and 42 are 
by no means secure.) 

The only feature within 40m of ditch 43 on its 
western side was pit 51, a sub-circular, possibly 
natural, feature producing six small sherds of 
undiagnostic pottery. The majority of the early 
Roman features lay further to the west, in an area 
where the overall density of features is higher. 

Apart from ditch 75, which ran east-west, all 
the early Roman ditches in this area were aligned 
northwest-southeast. Ditch 75, which was 0.9m 
wide and 0.45m deep, was cut by the slightly deeper 
ditch 77, measuring 0.8m wide and 0.73m deep, 
both ditches containing early Roman pottery. Ditch 
68, c. 3m to the west, was very similar in form and 
alignment to ditch 77, measuring 0.8m wide and 
0.54m deep. Two ditches further to the southwest, 
96 and 110, also dated to the early Roman period. 
Of these, the former is relatively shallow, at 0.25m, 
while the latter is deeper, at 0.89m. Each of these 
ditches, possibly all drainage features, differed 
slightly in form, and did not appear within the limits 
of the trench to form any coherent arrangement. A 
number of similar but undated ditches in the same 
area may have been contemporaneous. 

Two shallow sub-circular pits in this area were 
firmly dated to the Ist or 2nd century AD: pit 101, 
c.1.8m across and 0.24m deep; and pit 141, c.2.2m 
wide and 0.62m deep, from which fragments of re- 
deposited human bone belonging to two individuals 
were recovered. 


Later Roman (3rd and 4th century AD) 

In contrast to the early Roman period, only six 
features can definitely be dated to the 3rd or 4th 
centuries AD. All of them, apart from pit 71, which 
at 0.92m in depth was the deepest excavated pit of 
this date, were located at the northeast end of the 
trench. 

Acremation burial, consisting of cremated bone 
from an adult and a neonate, had been placed in a 
Black Burnished Ware jar (Figure 3) in a shallow 
cut (feature 15) with a dump of pyre debris. The 
burial was adjacent to pit 14, a steep-sided sub- 
circular pit, c. 1.3m in diameter and 0.3m deep, 
also containing pyre debris, including quantities of 
burnt human bone from an adult, as well as the 
square base of a glass vessel, hobnails, nails, a copper 
alloy fitting, a coin of Constantine I (AD 306-337), 
sherds of pottery and small quantities of 
unidentifiable burnt animal bone. 


EXCAVATION OF ROMAN FEATURES AND DEPOSITS ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF CUNETIO, 1997 31 


Although no direct joins were found between 
the fragments of adult bone from the two features, 
there was no duplication of skeletal elements, and 
the age and general morphology of the bone was 
similar in both contexts, suggesting that it originated 
from the same cremation. The combined weight of 
the bone, 654.3g, represents a maximum of 65% 
of the expected weight from an adult cremation 
(McKinley 1993), suggesting that some bone, 
particularly skull fragments which were under- 
represented, was removed for disposal elsewhere. 
The combined cremation of an adult and an 
immature individual represents the most commonly 
occurring type of dual cremation (McKinley 1997), 
and may indicate that a mother and child died and 
were cremated together. 

Pit 14 cut two earlier pits — pits 16 and 30. Pit 
30 may have been a rubbish pit, while pit 16, the 
base of which was lined with a layer of tile and sarsen 
stones, may have been used for some form of 
storage. Pits 25 and 27, in pit group 158, also 
contained later Roman pottery. Pit 25, 2.4m wide 
and 0.6m deep, cut pit 27, 1.2m in diameter and 
0.4m deep. Their function is uncertain, although 
the material recovered from them suggests that they 
were rubbish pits. 


Medieval 

Two ditches, both aligned northwest-southeast, and 
one pit (pit 104) contained sherds of 12th and 13th 
century AD pottery. Ditch 121 was 1.9m wide and 
0.8m deep with a V-shaped profile. Ditch 108, c. 
5m to the southwest, was 0.7m wide and 0.65m 
deep. They probably represent activity peripheral 
to a nearby agricultural settlement. 


Undated 
Many of the excavated features, most of them to 
the southwest, could not be closely dated. These 
included two truncated, intercutting shallow graves, 
both aligned roughly east-west, immediately west 
of, and disturbed by, medieval ditch 108. Much of 
the bone in grave 60, which had the upper torso to 
the east, was disturbed by the later grave 67. Grave 
60 also contained bone from two further individuals, 
possibly derived from other truncated graves in the 
vicinity. (Five sherds of medieval pottery recorded 
as having come from the grave are likely to have 
derived instead from ditch 108, which was not 
initially recognised as truncating this grave.) Grave 
67 was in a slightly better condition, with 
significant portions of the skull and the left arm 
surviving in situ, although again the inhumation 


was too badly preserved to establish the precise 
body position. 

The small size of the whole unburnt bone 
assemblage (which includes the bone from early 
Roman pit 141, as well as that from two individuals 
from undated ditch 149) and nature of the deposits 
—miostly disarticulated and redeposited — precludes 
much demographic discussion. Individuals were of 
both sexes, and ranged in age from neonatal to older 
adult. The majority of the pathological lesions, none 
of which was severe, were of a degenerative nature 
most commonly associated with age-related wear 
and tear (Rogers and Waldron 1995).This evidence 
suggests the assemblage represents part of a ‘normal 
domestic’ cemetery, which, including the eight 
burials already recorded (Meyrick 1955), gives a 
total to date of 15 individuals. 

Other undated features included further pits 
and ditches, including ditch 90 which had two 
postholes dug into its base, suggesting the ditch 
may have had a structural function. Three other 
postholes were excavated in this area, but no other 
structures could be identified within the limits of 
the trench. 


DISCUSSION 


The limited extent of the excavation makes it 
difficult to draw firm conclusions as to the 
significance of the features uncovered. However, the 
excavation has shed considerable light on the nature 
and extent of Roman activity west of Cunetio, 
extending the area of known archaeological remains 
to some 300m from the town’s defences, and 
northwest towards the floodplain of the River 
Kennet. Ditch 43, which may have continued up 
to the river, appears to have had a chalk rampart 
on its northeastern side and could have formed a 
major defensive boundary to the nucleated 
settlement in the 2nd century AD, possibly 
protecting a river crossing. There were no other 
contemporaneous features within 15m to the 
northeast of the ditch, beyond which the evidence 
of occupation consisted of a well and a number of 
rubbish pits. 

To the southwest, the concentration of early 
Roman features, possibly associated with a domestic 
settlement, is separated from the ditch by a gap of 
some 50m, the gap possibly acting as a defensive 
zone in front of the ditch. The two undated graves 
to the southwest have a similar alignment and 


32 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


location to the 1st century AD burials previously 
excavated (Meyrick 1955, 20), and they may be 
associated with the first phase of Roman settlement 
within the river valley. The presence of re-deposited 
human bone in a number of other features in this 
area, including early Roman pit 141, supports this 
dating for the burials, and also suggests that there 
may be further truncated burials in the immediate 
vicinity. 

There was less evidence for settlement 
extending as far to the west in the later Roman 
period. The later Roman features were fewer and 
less informative, most appearing to be rubbish pits, 
although they point to some continued activity in 
the western hinterland of the town. The main 
exception was the cremation burial towards the 
northeast end of the trench. Cremation burial was 
relatively unusual in the 4th century AD, with 
inhumation the predominant mode (Philpott 1991, 
50), although later Roman cremation burials were 
found at Winterbourne Down (Algar 1961, 470), 
Lankhills in Winchester (Clarke 1979) and 
Owslebury, Hampshire (Collis 1977, 27). It was 
impossible to establish whether the cremation burial 
was an isolated feature or part of a larger extra- 
mural cemetery. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Wessex Archaeology would like to acknowledge the 
co-operation of Thames Water Utilities, in particular 
Mr Alan Young (Project Manager) and Ms Juliet 
Roper (Senior Conservation and Heritage 
Scientist). The collaborative role of Mike Lang Hall 
(Archaeological Consultant), Roy Canham and 
Duncan Coe (Wiltshire County Council) is also 
acknowledged, as is the assistance of the Resident 
Engineer, Mathew le Port (Gleesons). Aerial 
photographic transcription was undertaken by 
Chris Cox, Air Photo Services, and her assistance 
during the course of the project is acknowledged. 
Mark Corney is acknowledged for his helpful 
comments and advice on the results of the 
fieldwork. 

The project was managed for Wessex 
Archaeology by Roland J.C. Smith and was directed 
in the field by Phil Harding with the assistance of 
Nicholas Cooke, Chris Ellis, Jim Stedman, Julie 


Lovell, James Wright and Cornelius Barton. The 
illustrations were prepared by S.E. James. A more 
detailed report on the results of the work (Wessex 
Archaeology 1998) has been deposited with the 
Wiltshire SMR. 


References 


ALGAR, D.J., 1961, Winterbourne Down: Roman 
cemetery. WANHM 58, 470 

BURNHAM, B.C., and WACHER, J., 1990, The Small 
Towns of Roman Britain. London: Batsford 

CLARKE, G., 1979, Pre-Roman and Roman Winchester 
Part II: The Roman Cemetery at Lankhills. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press 

COLLIS, J., 1977, ‘Owslebury (Hants) and the problem 
of burials on rural settlements’, in R. Reece (ed.), 
Burial in the Roman World, 26-34. London: Council 
for British Archaeology Research Report 22 

CORNEY, M., 1997, The origins and development of 
the ‘Small Town’ of Cunetio, Mildenhall, Wiltshire. 
Britannia 28, 337-50 

CORNEY, M., 2001, “The Romano-British nucleated 
settlements of Wiltshire’, in P. Ellis (ed.), Roman 
Wiltshire and After: Papers in Honour of Ken 
Annable, 3-38. Devizes: WANHS 

COX, C., 1997, ‘Mildenhall Rising Main SU 2068, 2069, 
2168, 2169 Wiltshire, Aerial Photographic 
Assessment’. Unpublished Air Photo Services Ltd. 
Client Report 967/13 

MCKINLEY, J.I., 1993, Bone fragment size and weights 
of bone from modern British cremations and its 
implications for the interpretation of archaeological 
cremations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 
3, 283-7 

MCKINLEY, J.I., 1997, Bronze Age ‘barrows’ and the 
funerary rites and rituals of cremation. Proceedings 
of the Prehistoric Society 63, 129-45 

MEYRICK, O., 1955, Romano-British burials at Werg. 
Marlborough College Natural History Society 96, 19- 
20 

PHILPOTT, R., 1991, Burial Practices in Roman Britain: 
A Survey of Grave Treatment and Furnishing A.D. 
43 — 410. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 
British Series 219 

ROGERS, J., and WALDRON, T., 1995, A Field Guide 
to Joint Disease in Archaeology. Chichester: Wiley 

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY, 1998, Excavation of 
Roman features and deposits on the outskirts of 
Cunetio (Mildenhall), Marlborough, Wiltshire 1n 
1997. Unpublished Client Report No. 43455 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 33-39 


Etruscan and Other Figurines from Avebury and 


Nearby 
by Paul Robinson 


The paper re-examines the history and provenance of a number of bronze figurines and related objects 
originally in the collection of Joshua Brooke. All are purported to be of Roman date and to have been 
found in and around Avebury during the late 19th and early 20th century. Whilst genuine Etruscan, 
Roman and Chinese antiquities, in each instance the provenance can be shown to be false. It is evident that 
Brooke was being sold antiquities with false findspots, a practice designed to increase their value that was 


not uncommon at the time. 


There are in the Society’s museum a group of 
bronze figurines and related objects which purport 
to be of Roman date and which were said to have 
been found at Avebury and in one instance, 
Bishops Cannings, the adjacent parish. They came 
to the museum in 1916 from the collection formed 
by Joshua Brooke and had previously been 
displayed in the private museum in his house at 
Marlborough. Most of these objects have been 
published at different times as genuine Wiltshire 
finds from Avebury or nearby. It is not however 
insignificant that they were all omitted by M.E. 
Cunnington (1932) and L.V. Grinsell (1957) in 
their gazetteers of archaeological finds made in 
the county, although most were included by Mrs 
Cunnington in 1934 in the catalogue of the 
museum collections of which she was joint author. 
It is now appreciated that there were important 
Roman buildings both in and near Avebury and it 
is therefore opportune to reconsider this group 
and their recorded provenances to consider 
whether there is indeed any possibility that any 
may be genuine finds from Wiltshire. 

Joshua Brooke built up an extremely important 
collection of artefacts and coins, many of which 
were found in Wiltshire and West Berkshire. Some 

_of these came from excavations that he himself 
undertook: some were given to him by landowners 


while others he purchased from dealers or the 
workmen who had found them. He was perhaps 
unfairly and rather summarily dismissed by O.G.S. 
Crawford as ‘a rather crazy and disreputable 
collector. .. he did not appreciate the importance 
of recording the exact sites of his finds; many of 
these were obtained from road workmen and others, 
and the sites of many are suspect’ (Crawford 1955, 
27f). Brooke did however fully appreciate that the 
objects from Avebury which are the subject of this 
paper were potentially of very great importance in 
understanding the history of the monument and 
the region around it in Roman times. While few of 
these objects, and indeed a small proportion only 
of the objects and coins in his collection do have 
precise findspots, most do have relatively close 
findspots. Where the findspot is more general, this 
is almost certainly because he had been given only 
generalised information by the donor or vendor. 
Certainly in his manuscript notebooks, which are 
preserved in the library of the WANHS, Brooke 
records findspots, evidently in as much detail as he 
was able to. While he was certainly knowledgeable 
about coins and artefacts, he does appear at times 
to have been gullible with regard to some 
provenances and fanciful in some of his 
identifications. In this respect he is perhaps no 
different from many other collectors, archaeologists 


The Museum, WANHS, 41 Long Street, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1NS 


34 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


or provincial museum curators of his time, when 
they have been faced with archaeological finds either 
made by members of the public or offered for sale 
by dealers. 

The group of objects is as follows. They are listed 
in the order given to them by Brooke in his 
catalogue of his collection. 


a i 
a 


} 


Fig.1. Italic figurine of a priest or genius from ‘Avebury 


1. 
Italic bronze figurine depicting a priest or genius 
(Figure 1). Height 65mm. It is said to have been 
found at Avebury but the purported exact findspot 
is not recorded. Neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s 
name is recorded. Accession number: Brooke 
collection 117. Published: 1. Cunnington and 
Goddard (1934, 226); 2. Green (1976, 191) as ‘a 
white metal statuette with a radiate head’. 
Professor E.A. Richardson has kindly reported 
on this figurine as follows (pers. comm.): ‘The 
bronze, with spiky crown, patera in the right hand 
and an acerra (incense box) in the left hand is a 
battered example of the common type of ‘priest’ or 


‘genius’ found at Latium and Etruria in quantities. 
A few have dedicatory inscriptions in Etruscan or 
Latin. Some come from the Latin sanctuary of 
Nemi, some from Orvieto and many have no 
provenance. It is a type apparently invented in the 
2nd century B.C, 

Other examples of comparable Italic figurines 
are recorded as having been found at Chester and 
London (Pitts 1979, 69, no. 96). They were however 
not found in the course of archaeological 
excavations and cannot be seen as confirming the 
genuineness of the Avebury findspot. The figurines 
were made as dedications, not for trade or domestic 
use and they are extremely unlikely to have been 
brought to England in late Iron Age or Roman 
times. They must be seen almost certainly as recent 
imports into Britain, given false findspots to make 
them marketable to collectors of locally found 
artefacts. 

The figurine must be considered in association 
with the following Etruscan figurine: 


Fig. 2. Etruscan figurine of a standing warrior from 
‘Bishops Cannings’ 


ETRUSCAN AND OTHER FIGURINES FROM AVEBURY AND NEARBY 35 


De 

Etruscan bronze figurine depicting a warrior 
standing on a lead base (Figure 2). Height of 
figurine 73mm. The findspot is given either as 
‘Shepherds Shore, Bishops Cannings’, ‘near 
Devizes Waterworks’ (Devizes and Wiltshire 
Gazette, 6 July 1905), or ‘near Devizes’ (ibid. 17 
April 1916). Neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s 
names are recorded. Accession number: Brooke 
collection 118. Published: 1. Cunnington and 
Goddard (1934, 224 and pl. LXXIII, 4) as ‘a 
soldier’; 2. Green (1976, 191) as ‘a bronze Mars’. 

Professor E.A. Richardson reports on the 
figurine as follows (pers. comm.): “Che warrior with 
the patera in his right hand is a rather battered 
example of a type of which I know only three other 
examples — one in Florence, one in Verona and one 
in Paris. They wear a leather cuirass with shoulder 
guards and two rows of lappets (pteryges), fastened 
at the waist with a belt which is tied with a fancy 
knot in the Paris and Verona examples, but stiff and 
smooth with raised edges in Florence 338. The 
helmet is high-crowned: the Paris example looks 
like a Corinthian parade helmet: the others do not 
look like anything but an inverted pot. All have 
lowered cheek pieces fastened under the chin. The 
weight is on the right leg, hip out, left knee bent, 
foot to the side. The left arm is raised to lean on a 
spear: the right (arm) down and out to hold a patera. 
The type is a descendant of the Mars of Todi, 
“Warrior pouring a libation”. It is Etruscan and 
dates tentatively to the 3rd century B.C,’ 

As with the italic figurine above, such Etruscan 
bronze figurines were made as dedicatory offerings, 
not for trade or as personal objects. It is unlikely to 
have been an ancient loss in Wiltshire in the Iron 
‘ Age but most probably is a recent import into 
Britain which has been given a false findspot. 

The figurine may be compared with the 
Etruscan bronze figure of Turms (Hermes) said to 
have been found ‘by a labourer near Uffington’, i.e. 
not too far distant from Avebury, and now in the 
Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. It is soundly 
discounted as a genuine find, together with a 
number of other Etruscan figurines with purported 
English findspots in Rigby, Swaddling and Cowell 
1995. 


Be 

Roman bronze affix from a vessel in the form of a 
bearded male bust surmounted by a small modus, 
representing the Romano-Egyptian deity Serapis 


Fig. 3. Bronze affix depicting Serapis from ‘Avebury’ 


(Figure 3). Height 48mm, width 34mm. It is said 
to have been found at Rogers Meadow, Avebury 
and was purchased by Brooke from C.H. Paradise, 
who was a blacksmith at that village. Accession 
number: Brooke collection 119. Published: 1. 
Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 and pl. 
LXXIII, 3); 2. Green (1976, 191 and pl. 22f) as ‘a 
bronze male bust, probably Serapis’. 

The provenance is given on page 50 of Brooke’s 
notebook: ‘Aug 25 1911. Obtained from C.H. 
Paradise a small bronze head and bust of Jupiter 
Capitolinus which was found at Rogers meadow, 
Avebury. It appears to have some red enamel on 
the bust. CHP was offered £3 for it. I obtained the 
specimen for £3.10.0 much above its value, yet this 
with a similar specimen of a vestal virgin ?? Juno 
may have an immense bearing on the perpetuated 
meaning of Avebury in early Roman times.’ 

The ‘similar specimen of a vestal virgin’ is 
described below. The red enamel appears to be ink 
or paint and is not ancient. It may be the remains 
of an early collector’s accession or catalogue 
number. 

No other finds of Roman date have been 
recorded from Rogers Meadow at Avebury. Paradise 
is known to have sold to Brooke another bronze 


36 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


figurine said to have been found at Avebury (see 
no. 7 below), making it most likely that the 
provenance of this bronze affix is not genuine. 
There is in addition some doubt that a bronze 
figurine depicting Serapis would be likely to be 
found on a rural site in Wiltshire. Representations 
of the god are rare in Britain and are 
predominantly from urban sites. The only other 
purported image of the god from Wiltshire is a 
sculpture made from Egyptian porphyry, said to 
have been found at Highworth. This too is 
considered to have been most probably given a 
fraudulent provenance (Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 
no. 113). 


Fig. 4. Bronze steelyard weight depicting Cybele from 
‘Avebury’ 


4. 

Bronze steelyard weight in the form of a draped 
female bust, probably representing Cybele (Figure 
4). Height 53 mm, width 33 mm. The findspot is 
given only as ‘Avebury’ and neither the finder’s nor 
the vendor’s names are recorded. Accession 


number: Brooke collection 120. Published: 1. 
Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 and pl. 
LX111, 1) where the findspot is incorrectly stated 
to be the Roman town of Cunetio; 2. Green (1976, 
191). 

The steelyard weight is to be identified as ‘the 
similar specimen of a vestal virgin ?? Juno’ 
mentioned above, suggesting that it had been found 
and acquired by Brooke before 1911. There is no 
hard evidence to condemn the findspot, merely the 
facts that there is no satisfactory evidence 
confirming that the bronze was indeed found in 
Avebury, coupled with the unlikelihood that an 
object depicting Cybele should be a genuine ancient 
loss on a rural site in Wiltshire. 


5. 

Incomplete copper alloy figurine depicting the 
winged Cupid (Figure 5). The right arm is raised 
and the left leg bent. The right hand and the right 
foot are both missing. Height 48mm, width 37mm. 
The findspot is given only as Avebury and neither 
the finder’s nor the vendor’s names are recorded. 


Fig. 5. Bronze figurine of Cupid from ‘Avebury’ 


ETRUSCAN AND OTHER FIGURINES FROM AVEBURY AND NEARBY 37 


Accession number: Brooke collection 121. 
Published: 1. Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 224 
and plate LXXIII, 2); 2. Green (1976, 192) where 
the findspot is incorrectly given as Liddington. 

The figurine is possibly one of a pair of figurines 
depicting Cupid which originally flanked a larger 
bronze figurine of a classical god in a Jararium or 
domestic shrine. 

There are no positive arguments for denying 
that this is a genuine find from Avebury. There is at 
least one Roman building in the parish — that near 
Silbury Hill — which was evidently of sufficient 
importance that it would be a plausible place where 
the figurine might have been found. The recent 
discovery near Avebury of a Roman gold finger ring 
with an intaglio depicting Fortuna has confirmed 
that finds of particular quality might be found in 
the parish. However, the fact that there is no further 
information about the discovery of the figurine 
confirming the genuineness of the findspot and its 
association in Brooke’s collection with figurines to 
which a false provenance at Avebury has been 
applied suggest that the recorded findspot is 
probably not genuine. 


6. 
Fragment of a cheekpiece in copper alloy in the 
form of a hippocamp, probably manufactured in 
the 6th-5th centuries B.C. in Magna Graecia (the 
Greek cities in South Italy) rather than in Etruria 
(Figure 6). Height 59mm, width 49mm, thickness 
7mm. The findspot is given only as Avebury and 
neither the finder’s nor the vendor’s names are 
recorded. Accession number: Brooke collection 122. 
Published in Cunnington and Goddard (1934, 226: 
_not illustrated) as the ‘well-modelled Head of a 
Horse; perhaps an affix or handle from a vessel’. 
There is an almost identical cheekpiece in the 
Greek and Roman department at the British 
Museum (accession number 1975. 12-3.12) which 
is unprovenanced. A complete bridle with slightly 
less similar cheekpieces in the same department 
(accession number 1937.5-14.1) is also 
unprovenanced but catalogued as ‘Etruscan or 
South Italian’. A tore with terminals in the form of 
hippocamps similar to that on the cheekpiece was 
found at Belmonte-Picenza and it is suggested that 
it was manufactured in Magna Graecia, perhaps in 
Campania in the 6th century B.C. (Anon 1959, 
127 and fig. 100). As with the Italic and Etruscan 
figurines above it is highly unlikely that this could 
be a genuine ancient loss in Avebury. 


Fig. 6. Fragment of a cheekpiece from Magna Graecia, 
found in ‘Avebury’ 


es 

Two fragments comprising the head and one 
shoulder of a bust of Buddha made of copper alloy 
with traces of gilding and red paint (Figure 7). It 
has been identified by Shelagh Vainker, Chinese 
curator at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, as 
‘Chinese... probably Ming, 15th —16th century’. 
As well as having been broken into pieces, the face 
has been heavily battered and the left eye is missing. 
Height (of head fragment) 107mm, width 72mm, 
depth 48mm. It is described on the accompanying 
label as having been ‘found near Avebury’ and in 
Brooke’s notebook as from ‘under Monkton Hill 
in...Avebury’. Brooke purchased it from Barnard, 
‘a local curio dealer’, who in turn had purchased it 
from C.H. Paradise, the Avebury blacksmith. It 
appears not to have been given a catalogue number 
by Brooke, who initially believed it to depict the 
Roman god, Mars. The importance of the piece is 
that its full provenance is recorded and that it 
illustrates the unreliability of those who supplied 
Brooke with antiquities for his collection. 

Brooke records in his notebook (page 80): 
‘March 14, 1894. Barnard Curio dealer brought in 
the remains of a Bronze Eastern like head which he 
said had been ploughed up under Monkton Hill in 
the parish of Avebury. He said that it was only a 


38 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 7. Two fragments of a bust of Buddha found in 
‘Avebury’ 


portion but the whole could be obtained. From what 
I gleaned, the figure when found was put up as an 
Aunt Sally and knocked to pieces by ploughboys in 
their dinner hour. 

‘March 29. I made searching enquiries at 
Avebury and ascertained that Barnard had obtained 
the specimen from Paradise (Blacksmith). I offered 
10/- for the remainder and called again when I 
received a portion of the shoulder. I was informed 
by Paradise that the whole was laid on his bench 
for months and that he had made many attempts 
to put it together. In fact he had the pieces not a 


fortnight previous. The find was made about 18 
months ago and Paradise bought it from Monkton, 

The figurine was also sketched in his notebook 
(as figure 8) and entitled ‘Figure of Mars’. 

Although not a genuine find, the bronze is 
nevertheless of some interest as a documented 
example of a Chinese antiquity which had reached 
Britain prior to 1894. 

The practice of deliberately giving false 
findspots to archaeological objects is a long 
established one. It was first exposed by Franks 
(1858): ‘The numerous local antiquaries who have 
sprung up since archaeology has been more 
carefully studied, are anxious to obtain antiquities 
from some particular locality. Spurious localities 
are therefore invented, and Greek, Etruscan, 
Egyptian, and Italian antiquities are palmed off on 
the unwary as having been found in his native soil. 
I have been informed by dealers in curiosities that 
labourers frequently come to their shops and 
purchase miscellaneous rubbish to be retailed to 
any stray archaeologist who should venture near 
their work. I remember some years since being 
shown a modern Abyssinian sandal duly steeped in 
oil which purported to have been found in Roman 
London; and I have even seen Greek vases, which 
were said to be found in digging the foundations in 
the city; one of them I strongly suspect to have been 
recently brought from Cyrenaica, and another had 
all the marks of having been through the hands of 
an Italian restorer of modern times. Such frauds 
are carried on to a great extent in coins, and the 
recent works in the city have supplied a profitable 
outlet for the rubbish of coin sales.’ 

The paragraph illustrates that the antiquities 
which were already in the mid-19th century being 
given false findspots and ‘palmed off on the unwary’ 
included items originally from Italy, which had been 
purchased from Victorian curio shops. The addition 
of a spurious findspot in Britain not only made them 
easier to sell but gave them an enhanced value as 
‘exotic’ finds. In the 19th century the number of 
potential purchasers of antiquities and coins 
increased with the growth of local museums and 
the increase in the number of people interested in 
local history and archaeology. It was inevitable that 
unscrupulous people would emerge to satisfy this 
demand by dishonest means. Other early Italian 
items purporting to have been found in Wiltshire 
include the bronze spiked bit roller of the 6th-4th 
century BC purporting to have been found at Great 
Bedwyn (Evans 1881, 271f; Grinsell 1957, 73 — 
described as a socketed bronze ‘mace-head’) as well 


ETRUSCAN AND OTHER FIGURINES FROM AVEBURY AND NEARBY 39 


as all but one of the Italic fibula brooches from 
Wiltshire — and other counties — which have already 
been dismissed as genuine local finds by Hull and 
Hawkes (1987), as well as by Rigby, Swaddling and 
Cowell (1995). The only Italic find from Wiltshire 
that is at present considered genuine is a fibula 
brooch with a ‘violin bow’, dated to the 12th century 
BC, and found in Avebury (!). An Early Bronze 
Age flint dagger, purporting to have been found at 
Avebury, exposed by Leslie Grinsell (1953-4), 
illustrates how British antiquities also were at times 
given false provenances. 

It would be very easy to condemn Brooke 
outright for his gullibility in accepting impossible 
local findspots for a few purported finds and to 
dismiss the rest of his collections as having unproven 
findspots. It is, however, likely that false findspots 
are restricted to a small part only of his collection. 

Brooke nevertheless has made a significant 
contribution to the archaeology of Wiltshire. Over 
a period of some thirty years he did record as 
accurately as he was able to do or as he believed 
was necessary, the findspots of a large number of 
prehistoric, Roman and Medieval objects and coins 
from the area of the North Wiltshire Downs and 
West Berkshire. His records of, for example, 
Mesolithic flints from Aldbourne and Roman finds 
from the site of Cunetio at Mildenhall still remain 
crucial for our appreciation of these sites. By 
purchasing objects found he ensured that they 
would be preserved in the county. For many years, 
for example, the hoard of Bronze Age socketed axes 
from Manton which he had purchased was the only 
complete hoard of metalwork of this period to be 
preserved in the county. Recent discoveries from 
Manton have given this find a particular 
importance. While private collectors of antiquities 
frequently receive a bad press, their contribution 
in the past to our knowledge of Wiltshire 
archaeology cannot be denied. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The writer is indebted to Professor E. Richardson, 


Dr Judith Swaddling and Ms Shelagh Vainker for 


their help in writing this paper and for permission 
to quote them here. Martin Henig read a draft and 
made suggestions for its improvement. 


Bibliography 


ANON., 1959, Piceni. Populo d’Europa. (Exhibition 
Catalogue). Luca 

CRAWFORD, O.G.S., 1955, Said and Done: The 
Autobiography of an Archaeologist. London 

CUNLIFFE, B.W. and FULFORD, M.G., 1982, Bath 
and the Rest of Wessex. The British Academy Corpus 
Signorum Imperii Romani — Corpus of Sculpture of 
the Roman World. Great Britain, volume 1, fascicule 
2. Oxford: Oxford University Press 

CUNNINGTON, M.E., 1932, ‘Romano-British 
Wiltshire’. WANHM 45, 166-216 

CUNNINGTON, M.E. and GODDARD, E.H., 1934, 
Catalogue of Antiquities in the Museum of the 
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 
at Devizes. Part II. Devizes: WANHS 

EVANS, J., 1881, The Ancient Bronze Implements, 
Weapons, and Ornaments, of Great Britain and 
Treland. London 

FRANKS, A.W., 1858, ‘Frauds and Forgeries of 
“antiques”. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 
5, 5andi233 

GREEN, M.J., 1976, The Religions of Civilian Roman 
Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 24 

GRINSELL, L.V., 1953-4, ‘A Flint Dagger from 
Avebury’, WANHM 55, 176 and 291 

GRINSELL, L.V., 1957, ‘Archaeological Gazetteer’, in 
R.P. Pugh and Elizabeth Critall (eds), A History of 
Wiltshire, Vol. 1, Part 1. London: Oxford University 
Press 

HULL, M.R. and HAWKES, C.F.C., 1987, Corpus of 
Ancient Brooches in Britain by the late Mark Reginald 
Hull, Pre-Roman Bow Brooches. Oxford: British 
Archaeological Reports 168 

PITTS, L.F., 1979, Roman Bronze Figurines of the 
Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes. Oxford: British 
Archaeological Reports 60 

RIGBY, V., SWADDLING, J.T., and COWELL, M., 
1995, ‘The Blandford Forum Group: Are any 
Etruscan Figures True Finds from Great Britain and 
Eire?’, in J. Swaddling, S. Walker and P. Roberts (eds), 
Italy in Europe: Economic Relations 700BC —AD50. 
London: British Museum Occasional Paper 97 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


40 


Grand Avenue, Savernake Forest, May 2000 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 40-46 


The Trees of Savernake Forest 


by Jack Oliver 


A complete list of the trees, including hybrids, recorded during 1999 and 2000 is provided with indications 
of frequency, situation and spread. These can be categorised in four groups which are described. Some 
individual trees of national significance are mentioned. The diversity both of tree types and habitats puts 
Savernake at least on a par with Stourhead and Longleat. 


INTRODUCTION 


Most of the present extent of Savernake Forest, 905 
hectares, was notified as an SSSI in 1971 and again 
in 1988, largely on the grounds of exceptional 
biological diversity. The Forest is in private ownership 
(Lord Cardigan) although much of it is currently 
managed by the Forestry Authority. Savernake Forest 
has a very long history. The three old forms of the 
name Savernake are Saxon in origin and are — 
Savernoc, Savernac and Savernak; all of these have 
their suffixes alluding to the three old forms of oak, 
oc, ac and ak. Today, in addition to ancient oaks, 
there are many different types of trees of different 
sizes and ages growing in the forest. During 1999 
and 2000 I spent many hours walking in Savernake 
Forest recording and measuring the trees. The 
following is summary of my findings. 

The trees can be categorised in four groups: 
Native species and natural variants. 

Forestry plantations. 

Naturalised and semi-naturalised species. 
Exotics, mainly (but not exclusively) found in 
the Savernake Forest Arboretum. 


NATIVE SPECIES AND 
NATURAL VARIANTS 


To NS 


Native oaks including the English (or pedunculate) 
- oak, the sessile (or durmast) oak, and intermediates 


which appear to be hybrids and back-crossings 
between the two. There is also the Savernake Cluster 
oak, a very rare mutant form of the English oak 
which can, however, reproduce itself. Some of the 
ancient oaks have been pollarded, some coppiced 
and some both, in past centuries. In fact both 
pollarding and coppicing increase longevity. 
Several of the oaks would go back to pre-Tudor 
times and one (the Big-belly) to the Saxon era. 
This has a coppice circumference of 14 metres. 
Twelve Savernake oaks have girths, at 5 ft from 
the ground, of over 7 metres, including one of 
almost 10 metres and two over 10 metres. Old 
names of some of these veterans include King of 
Limbs, Duke’s Vaunt, Amity Oak, Cathedral Oak, 
Queen Oak and Braydon Oak (see Oliver & Davies 
2001, WANHM, for a much fuller account of the 
Savernake Oaks). 

Beeches and hornbeams were probably past 
introductions to Savernake Forest (see ensuing 
sections), but there are in the Forest not less than 
25 further types of tree native to the area, including 
hybrids. In approximate order of commonness, 
these are as follows: - hawthorn, holly, elder, field 
maple, silver birch, (there is also downy birch and 
hybrid), pussy willow (also grey sallow and the 
hybrid), cherry (gean), hazel, ash, rowan, wych elm, 
English elm (suckers only, following Dutch Elm 
disease), crab-apple, yew, sloe, spindle, whitebeam, 
midland hawthorn (and the hybrid with the 
common hawthorn), buckthorn, and a single 


High View, Rhyls Lane, Lockeridge, Marlborough SN8 4ED 


42 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


remaining small-leaved lime. A field maple in the 
south central part of the Forest is hollow, and one 
of the largest girth field maples in the country (4m 
at 6ft from the ground). The Savernake (true) crab- 
apple trees are exceptionally spiny, with cherry-sized 
or even smaller fruits. 


Hollow Field Maple 


FORESTRY 
PLANTATIONS 


Many of the plantations have broad designations 
such as ‘Mixed Broadleaves’ or ‘Mixed Conifer.’ 
Oak (mainly pedunculate, but often from foreign 
acorns) is the most commonly planted followed by 
beech. Other tree species, variants and hybrids 
planted include the following in approximate order 
of frequency: - birch (two native species, the hybrid, 
and four foreign species in an experimental plot), 
Scots pine, Norway spruce (Christmas trees), larch, 
(European, Polish and hybrids), Douglas fir, ash, 
sycamore, larch (Japanese), Corsican pine, western 
hemlock-spruce, hazel, gean, bird-cherry, American 
red oak, sweet chestnut, large-leaved lime, poplar, 
(black poplar hybrids), hornbeam, Lawson’s cypress 
and grand fir. 


NATURALIZED AND 
SEMI-NATURALIZED 
TREE SPECIES AND 
TYPES 


The following tree types reproduce naturally in 
Savernake Forest, but were not originally native to 
the area. The most important species is beech, which 
dominates many avenues and other parts of the 
Forest. The beech can be either broad and spreading 
or slender and graceful with narrow angled 
branching. Probably both management techniques 
and genetic factors are involved. A type of mutant 
beech with rough bark like an oak also occurs in 
Savernake Forest, (Oliver 2000). One of the finest 
and largest beeches in the British Isles is flourishing 
on the S.E. fringe of the Forest, the Warren Farm 
Great Beech. In the year 2000, this had a girth of 7 
metres at 5ft from the ground. Some of the beeches 
south of Charcoal Burners Road have copper-tinged 
leaves, as have numbers of descendent saplings. 
Perhaps the most impressive trees in Savernake 
Forest are the sweet (or Spanish) chestnuts. Many 
have residual old coppice rings at the base and a 
few have huge fractured trunks or boughs. However 
most have straight tall trunks, with beautifully 
spiralled bark. Coppice ring circumferences can 
exceed 10metres and girths at shoulder height can 
exceed 7metres. Of equal or even greater heights 
are the Savernake common (hybrid) limes. These 
usually have their trunks largely hidden by dense 
masses of stem sprouts, often also with vigorous 
basal suckering. Seedlings can also be produced in 
abundance in spring, but voles nearly always eat 
them; so fewer than 0.1% survive their first summer. 
Many of the limes seem to have been planted as 


Plantation of young trees 


THE TREES OF SAVERNAKE FOREST 


grand avenues in the past, on account of their height 
and beauty. 

Hornbeams were once plantation trees 
introduced from other parts of Britain, but are now 
reproducing naturally, often with more seedlings 
and saplings than the commoner large beeches 
around them. Horse chestnuts only progress from 
seed (conker) to sapling rarely in the Forest, and I 
have only seen two seedlings of Turkey oak. 
However there is one Turkey oak with a buttressed 
base and this fine tree exceeds any of the native 
oaks in height. Descendants of eating apple trees 
are also to be found which could derive from 
discarded cores or from birds or rodents. 


Sweet chestnut 


None of the trees in this section compare with 
sycamore and Norway maple for naturalisation and 
survival of seedlings in the forest conditions. In parts 
of Savernake Forest, natural saplings of these two 
(once foreign species) can survive in dozens, 
thriving as if they were true natives. 


EXOTICS 


Occasional surprises in unexpected parts of 
_Savernake Forest include fine cedars of Lebanon and 
a tall imposing Monterey pine. There are also younger 
western red cedars and Lawson’s cypresses planted 


43 


Monterey pine 


at entrances or to screen the camping washrooms. 
However most of the unusual introductions were 
planted in the Savernake Arboretum or in the garden 
areas near the Forestry Offices. These areas include 
30 more types of coniferous tree and 20 more types 
of broadleaf over and above those mentioned under 
the three previous headings. 


LIST OF TREE SPECIES 
AND HYBRIDS (INCLUD- 
ING TOTTENHAM PARR) 


The ensuing list covers Savernake Forest and its 
immediate fringing gardens both within the Forest, 
and its edges. Altogether the area considered is very 
diverse. Some species are found mostly or only at 
Tottenham Park; others have spread at Tottenham 
Park but not in the main Forest — for instance cherry 
and Portugal laurels, by extensive layering. 
Savernake Forest has many huge native and 
naturalized trees such as oaks, beeches and 
chestnuts, but very few large exotic trees, because 
the Arboretum is young. By contrast, Tottenham 
Park has several giant specimen non-native species 
(such as wellingtonias) but only a few really large 
native trees. 


ead 


The right hand columns give an immediate 
indication of the botanical (as opposed to the 
forestry or horticultural) importance of each taxon. 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


than 50 conifer species, which is common, widely 
distributed, and self-perpetuating, whereas this 
applies to nearly one third of the dicotyledonous 


For instance, yew is the only conifer out of more 


tree species and hybrids listed. 


Key 


Frequency Column 

C Common, likely to be seen in many parts of the forest 

O Occasional 

R_ Rare 

Situation Column 

W Widespread; (sometimes as a major plantation 
species) 

L_ Limited occurrences 


T Mainly or only Tottenham Park 
A Mainly or only Savernake Forest Arboretum 
P Confined to small or experimental plantations 


Natural Spread 
S Seedlings and/or natural saplings noted locally 


SS Seedlings and or natural saplings extensive, or 


frequently seen 


F Forest fringes and/or private gardens. H, used as 


hedging 


Ginkgoaceae 
Araucariaceae. 
Cupressaceae. 


Pinaceae 


V_ Limited vegetative spread, suckering, layering etc 


VV Extensive vegetative spread 


Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree 

Araucaria araucana Monkey Puzzle, Chile Pine 
Chamaecyparis formosensis Formosan Cypress 
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Lawsons Cypress 
Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Nootka Cypress 
Chamaecyparis pisifera Sawara Cypress 

X Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress 
Cupressus macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 
Juniperus recurva Drooping Juniper 

Thuja plicata Western Red-cedar 

Thuja orientalis Northern White-cedar 

Abies cephalonica Grecian Fir 

Abies concolor var lowiana Low’s White Fir 
Abies grandis Grand Fir 

Abies nordmanniana Caucasian Fir 

Abies procera Noble Fir 

Abies veitchii Veitch’s Silver Fir 

Cedrus atlantica Atlantic (Atlas) Cedar 
Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 

Cedrus libani Cedar of Lebanon 

Larix decidua (incl ssp polonica) European Larch 
(including Polish Larch) 

Larix kaemferi Japanese Larch 

Larix x marschlinsii Hybrid Larch 

Picea abies Norway Spruce 

Picea brachytyla Sargent Spruce 

Picea engelmannii Engelmann Spruce 

Picea glauca White Spruce 

Picea jezoensis Hondo Spruce 

Picea mariana Black Spruce 

Picea omorika Serbian Spruce 

Picea orientalis Oriental Spruce 

Picea pungens Colorado Blue Spruce 

Picea sitchensis Sitka Spruce 

Pinus aristata Bristlecone Pine 

Pinus banksiana Jack Pine 

Pinus contorta Shore/Lodgepole Pine 

Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine 

Pinus nigra ssp laricio & ssp nigra Black Pine 
(Corsican and Austrian Pines) 


Frequency Situation Natural Spread 


ar = 
A&F&T S 


[eel ned Bea leah losh [923 [eal 33 
a0) q 
nm! ' 1%.) 


> > bb > > Hy > 
ae) 


ie] 


&T - 


rere rrrrgduvuid 


&T - 


O AAAAAAADAAAAARAOAADO AAAAAAAAAXAOCAXDOAXA CAAA 
é 
| 


rc PpPprpp 


THE TREES OF SAVERNAKE FOREST 


Taxodiaceae 


Taxaceae 
Magnoliaceae 
Lauraceae 
Platanaceae 
Fagaceae 


Betulaceae 


Juglandaceae 
Salicaceae 


Tiliaceae 


Ulmaceae 


Aquifoliaceae 
Ericaceae 
Rosaceae 


Pinus pinea Stone Pine 

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine 

Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 

Pinus rigida Northern Pitch Pine 

Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine 

Pinus wallichiana Bhutan Pine 
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 

Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock-spruce 
Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemlock-spruce 
Cryptomeria japonica Japanese Red-cedar 
Cunninghamia lanceolata Chinese Fir 
Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood 
Sequoiadendron giganteum Wellingtonia 
Taxus baccata Yew 

Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree 

Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel 

Platanus x hispanica London Plane 
Castanea sativa Spanish Chestnut 

Fagus sylvatica & variants Beech 
Nothofagus nervosa Rauli 

Nothofagus obliqua x nervosa Hybrid Roble-Rauli 
Quercus cerris Turkey Oak 

Quercus coccinea ?Scarlet Oak 

Quercus x crenata Lucombe Oak 

Quercus ilex Holm Oak 

Quercus petraea Durmast Oak 

Quercus robur English (Pendunculate) Oak 
(Quercus robur ‘Cristata’ Savernake Cluster Oak, 
an endemic variant of the preceding) 
Quercus x rosacea Hybrid Native Oak 
Quercus rubra (borealis) American Red Oak 
Betula x aurata Hybrid Native Birch 
Betula ermanii Hermann’s Birch 

Betula lenta Cherry Birch 

Betula lutea Yellow Birch 

Betula maximowiczii Monarch Birch 
Betula papyrifera Paper Birch 

Betula pendula Silver Birch 

Betula pubescens Downy Birch 

Carpinus betulus Hornbeam 

Corylus avellana Hazel 

Juglans regia Walnut 

Populus nigra ‘Plantierensis’ Black Poplar 
Populus x canadensis Hybrid Biack Poplar 
Populus x jackii Hybrid Balsam Poplar 
Salix caprea Sallow; Goat or Pussy Willow 
Salix cinerea ssp oleifolia Grey Willow 
Salix x reichardtii Hybrid Sallow 

Tilia cordata Small-leaved Lime 

Tilia x europea Common (Hybrid) Lime 
Tilia platyphyllos Broad-lvd Lime 

Ulmus glabra Wych Elm 

Ulmus procera English Elm 

Ilex aquifolium Holly 

Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron 
Crataegus monogyma Hawthorn 
Crataegus laevigata Midland Hawthorn 
Crataegus x media Hybrid Hawthorn 
Malus domestica Apple 

Malus sylvestris Crabapple 


45 


Frequency Situation Natural Spread 


OO OOZA OOOO AAA OOM A OOO AAA OOAnR MARA A ORO AO 7 Aa a 


AA 
29 
one) 


OOAANDNVOANA 


gg 
x 


>t iS rm PP 
Br geep <4pnk 
Re 
4 


pe rd 
ig 
~ 


Vinge 
fh fa 


a4hrr gee 


46 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Frequency Situation Natural Spread 


Prunus avium Gean, Wild Cherry (Cc W S,VV 
Prunus cerasifera (and vars) Cherry Plum O F,H SV 
Prunus laurocerasus Cherry Laurel O F&T,H 2S, VV 
Prunus lusitanica Portugal Laurel O F&T,H 2S, VV 
Prunus padus Bird Cherry R 1B S 
Prunus sargenti Sargent Cherry R A - 
Prunus spinosa Blackthorn, Sloe Cc W S,VV 
Sorbus aria Whitebeam O Ww S 
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan C Ww SS 
Sorbus hupehensis Hupeh Rowan R F - 
Sorbus intermedia Swedish Whitebeam R A - 
Sorbus x thuringiaca Bastard Service Tree R A - 
Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Laburnum anagyroides Laburnum O WwW - 
Celastraceae Euonynus europaeus Spindle O W S 
Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn R F S 
Hippocastanaceae Aesculus carnea Red Horse-Chestnut O F - 
Aesculus hippocastanum Greek Horse-Chestnut SC W S 
Aceraceae Acer campestre Field Maple Cc W SS 
Acer palmatum Japanese Maple R Jb - 
Acer pensylvanicum Moosewood R A - 
Acer platanoides Norway Maple (c; WwW SS 
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore G Ww SS 
Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior Ash G; W SS 
Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra Elder Cc W SS 


SUMMARY 


‘Total Tree Species: 107 (11 species sometimes or 
usually shrubby). 

Total Tree Hybrids: 13 (2 hybrids sometimes or 
usually shrubby). 

Total Taxa, including Subspecies and important 
Variants: more than 130 

Extensive natural spread: 18 species, 1 hybrid. 

Occasional natural spread: 24 species, 5 hybrids. 


In general, Savernake Forest is most noteworthy 
for the varieties of its habitats including wild areas, 
plantations, semi-managed locations, glades and 
fields, and its tree types, putting it on a par with 
places such as Stourhead and Longleat. Ancient 
oaks, especially hybrid native oaks, may be the most 
important single group, but the Forest should also 
be famed for its beeches and Spanish chestnuts. 
Given another 200 years, there will certainly also 
be some fine specimen trees, (including rarer 
species) in the Savernake Arboretum to rival those 
in other established collections in Wiltshire. But it 
is to be hoped that the diversity will be maintained 
for many centuries longer than that. 


Most large trees have been earmarked, mapped, 
tagged and described. There are fine (digital) 
photos of many of these, taken by Joan Davies. The 
colour tree maps, tag keys, taxonomic and 
descriptive text, historical accounts and photos have 
been retained at the County Archives at Trowbridge 
(see Oliver 2001, 2002, and Davies, 2001). 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
My thanks to Joan Davies for preparing the 
illustrations for this paper. 


Bibliography 


DAVIES, J. M., 2001 Savernake Parish Millennium 
Project, Wiltshire &] S[windon] R{ecord] O[ffice] 
3255 

OLIVER, J.E. & DAVIES, J.M. ‘Savernake Forest Oaks’, 
WANHM, 93, 24-46 

OLIVER, J. E., 2000 ‘Beech Tree Variants in Savernake 
Forest’, BSBI News, 85, 26-43 

OLIVER, J. E., 2001 Savernake Millennium Tree Project, 
WSRO 3281 

OLIVER, J. E., 2002 ‘Savernake Forest Millennial Tree 
Maps. Baselines for Future Research’, BSBI News, 
90, 20 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 47-53 


Islam in East Knoyle: George Aitchison and the 
National School 1870-1873 


by Elisabeth Darby 


The former national school at East Knoyle (1870-1873) is exceptional, both for being the work of the 
London architect, George Aitchison, and for its Near Eastern style. This article documents the commission 
and examines the inspiration behind this unusual village school. 


The national school at East Knoyle (1870-1873: 
Figs. 1& 2) was designed by George Aitchison 
(1825-1910) who, although better known as an 
interior decorator and furniture designer than as 
an architect, nonetheless rose to the height of his 
profession, becoming President of the Royal 
Institute of British Architects in 1896.' Aitchison’s 
obituary in The Building News refers to the ‘many 
schools, warehouses and suites of offices’ designed 
by him,’ but East Knoyle appears to be his only 
known school. Even so, it does not appear in lists 
of his works and is only briefly mentioned in 
published literature.’ This article seeks not only to 
document the commission but also to explain the 
unusual style of the building which, with its 
overhanging eaves and ornamental windows in 
honey-coloured Ham Hill stone, draws inspiration 
from Near Eastern sources. As such, it pre-dates 
Aitchison’s more famous essay in this style — the 
Arab Hall at Leighton House, London (1877-79) - 
and thus occupies an important place in the 
architect’s career. 

The decision to erect a new school at East 
Knoyle followed the Education Act of 1870 which 
established boards in every district to provide 
schooling for children between the ages of five and 
thirteen. Canon R.N. Milford, who had arrived as 
rector of the parish in 1865, was a prime mover 

- behind the scheme to build the school,’ but it was 
at the suggestion of Alfred Seymour of Knoyle House 


that Milford wrote to George Aitchison in London 
on 3 November 1870 asking him to prepare plans.’ 

Alfred Seymour (1824-1888), described in his 
obituary as ‘in all respects a fine type of an English 
gentleman’,° was the younger son of Henry 
Seymour (1776-1849) who had built up the estates 
in the parish, and who was a descendant of Jane 
Seymour, wife of Henry VIII. Educated at Eton and 
Christ Church Oxford, Alfred was a Magistrate and 
Deputy Lieutenant of Wiltshire, and was MP for 
Salisbury between 1869 and 1874. Although Canon 
Milford was the initiator of the scheme, Seymour 
was the principal benefactor, providing the land and 
some materials for the school and donating over 
£500 to the fund. He was to be closely involved in 
the project, being consulted regularly on key issues 
and, in the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising 
that he should have nominated the architect. 

The choice of Aitchison is intriguing. On 
accepting the commission, Aitchison indicated that 
he had already ‘built some schools”’ - a fact that 
might have persuaded Seymour he was the right 
man for the job. On the other hand, up until this 
date (1870) Aitchison’s career as an architect had 
been largely limited to London buildings so the 
decision to employ an architect from the capital for 
a small country school was unusual. A more normal! 
practice would have been to commission a local 
architect, as was the case with the nearby and 
contemporary schools at Tisbury and Shaftesbury, 


The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5LZ 


48 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


both of which were built by James Soppitt of 
Shaftesbury.*® 

There are several possibilities as to how 
Seymour and Aitchison became acquainted. When 
he accepted the commission for the school at East 
Knoyle, Aitchison was working in the vicinity, at 


indirectly, for the style of East Knoyle school. 
Aitchison had first met Leighton in Italy in 1853 
when he was introduced to the painter as ‘an 
impoverished architectural student of twenty- 
seven’.!> The two were to become life-long friends 
and work together on several commissions: they 


Fig. 1 George Aitchison East Knoyle School c.1870. RIBA Library Drawings Collection 


Stalbridge, Dorset, the home of Richard de Aquila 
Grosvenor (1837-1912), the second surviving son 
of the second Marquess of Westminster.” Grosvenor 
was possibly acquainted with Alfred Seymour as, 
after the latter’s death in 1888, Knoyle House was 
periodically let out and he (now Baron Stalbridge) 
was one of the first tenants.!° Thus, it might have 
been at Grosvenor’s suggestion that Aitchison was 
engaged. 

Seymour could also have made the 
acquaintance of Aitchison through a distant relative, 
Percy Wyndham (1835-1911), to whom, in 1876, 
he was to sell his Clouds estate.'! In 1869 Percy 
Wyndham commissioned Aitchison to decorate 
parts of his London house at 44 Belgrave Square’ 
and Seymour (whose town house was in Eaton 
Square) may have been introduced to the architect 
there. 

Another possible intermediary, the painter and 
sculptor Frederic Leighton (1830-1896), is more 
significant, for he might also have been responsible, 


collaborated, for example, on the Wyndhams’ house 
in London. In 1864, as a consequence of the 
financial security and future success that followed 
the painter’s appointment as Associate of the Royal 
Academy, Leighton commissioned Aitchison to 
design his house and studio in Holland Park Road, 
London." Leighton was to use his house not only 
as a home and studio, but also as the venue for 
social gatherings, most notably Show Sunday (when 
artists opened their studios prior to the private view 
of the Royal Academy annual summer exhibition), 
and for his famous annual music party, held in his 
studio from c.1870.'° These events were important 
for attracting patrons and, as Leighton’s architect 
and friend, Aitchison would have been introduced 
into this wealthy, art-orientated circle. As a result, 
Aitchison’s career was to move in a new direction 
from the late 1870s and he was to enjoy a steady 
stream of commissions for interior decorative 
schemes, sometimes in collaboration with Leighton. 
It is quite possible that the Seymours visited 


ISLAM IN EAST KNOYLE: GEORGE AITCHISON & THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 1870-1873 49 


Leighton House on Show Sunday, or perhaps 
attended one of Frederic Leighton’s parties, and 
were introduced to Aitchison by the painter. 

There is a further link to Frederic Leighton 
which comes through Alfred Seymour’s wife 
Isabella. When Leighton was raised to the peerage 
in 1896, he stated that it was Sir Baldwyn Leighton 
(1836-1897) who had suggested he adopt the title 
Lord Leighton, Baron of Stretton in the County of 
Shropshire. This was in reference to an unrelated 
Leighton family which had owned lands around 
Stretton in Shropshire for centuries.'® If Frederic 
and Sir Baldwyn’s acquaintance dated back to the 
1870s, the latter may have introduced his sister 
Isabella, Alfred Seymour’s wife, to the painter who, 
in turn, may have introduced his architect, 
Aitchison. Moreover, Isabella, while married to her 
first husband Beriah Botfield, had had her portrait 
painted by G. F. Watts,'’ a close friend of Leighton 
since 1855, to whose studio in nearby Melbury 
Road Aitchison added a picture gallery in 1879.'* 

These connections, documented or conjectural, 
suggest that the Seymours were on the fringes of 
the artistic and aristocratic group that constituted 
the Holland Park circle in the later 19th century.'” 
They help to explain not only the unusual choice 
of a London architect for th school at East Knoyle 
but also the style of the building. 

The designing and building of the school was 
far from straightforward. Canon Milford’s original 
request was for ‘a school for 130 children - a 
residence for Master and Mistress - with two rooms 
in addition for the School mistress — as the wife of 
our present master does not teach — the School 
room — as it will be for Boys and Girls taught 
separately will have to be divided by sliding doors — 
It must also have two class rooms — It must be large 


nema = a a 7 
: Fig. 2 George Aitchison plan for East Knoyle School 
c.1870. Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office F8/ 
320/133 


and lofty —so as to be fit for concerts and meetings’. 
He surmised that all this could be achieved for 
£700.” Aitchison, who visited the site and produced 
his first drawings soon afterwards, estimated the 
lowest cost for such a scheme would be £1120 plus 
£150 for carriage of materials.” Over the next few 
months, as the site for the school changed no less 
than three times, entailing new drawings on each 
occasion,*’ various means of reducing the cost were 
discussed. These included abandoning the two extra 
rooms for the school mistress,”* thinning the stone,”* 
substituting partitions for interior brick walls and 
omitting chimney pieces and grates,” and also 
paying workmen ‘more at a country jog’, that is, 
making smaller payments over a longer period.”° 

However, the most important discussions about 
reducing the cost centred on the windows. The 
original design for the school (which does not 
appear to have survived) seems to have included 
stone mullioned windows. Alfred Seymour felt 
strongly that ‘the only way materially to reduce the 
cost...will be to cut out the stone mullions 
altogether and have oak frames for the windows’. 
He believed that ‘if you have only stone frames...it 
will cost much less than mullions which must be of 
art stone’ but also that they would be more 
practical.*’ Aitchison was willing to comply but 
noted that ‘in a stone country it is a pity to spoil the 
ship for a ha’worth of tar’.** As built, opening 
wooden windows were set behind decorative pierced 
frames in Ham Hill stone. That the parish was able 
to afford these was probably in part because Alfred 
Seymour gave a rent-free cottage for the School 
Master, thus dispensing with the need and 
additional cost of a separate building.*? Further, 
Mrs. Seymour paid £50 for the two large windows 
in the gables at each end of the building.” 

The final cost of the building was about £1000, 
slightly less than Aitchison’s original estimate.’ 
Aitchison’s fee was £135 —2-11, but he made no 
charge for one set of drawings or his travelling time 
between London and East Knoyle. He also made a 
donation of £10 to the funds because, as he stated, 
he took ‘great interest in the education question’. 
The contractors for the building were Doddington 
and Farthing of Mere. The foundation stone was 
laid by Mrs. Seymour on 21 June 1872” and by 
December of that year the walls of the school and 
outbuildings were complete, ‘the mullions and 
perforated heads in’ and the main roof tiled.** The 
school was opened on 6 June 1873 by Alfred 
Seymour in a ceremony attended by Aitchison. The 
Salisbury Journal, commenting on the building, 


50 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 3 Window of East Knoyle School 


singled out the ‘elegant, fluted columns in semi- 
relief, with beautifully carved capitals in Caen stone’ 
which flanked the entrance door. It noted also the 
‘interesting novelty of style’ of the building, 
particularly evident in ‘the overhanging eaves and 
windows’, which it referred to as ‘Byzantine’.” 
The principal architectural interest of East 
Knoyle School lies in the presence and design of 
the windows (Figs. 1 & 3). Although at an early 
stage, with limited funds, Aitchison had 
acknowledged that ‘some of the finely ornamented 
work might have to be omitted’,*® in the event the 
building possesses an unusually strong decorative 
element for a small village school. Moreover, the 
style of this decoration is exceptional in the context 
of buildings of this type. At this date (the early 
1870s), the more usual style would have been the 
Gothic Revival, not least because of its national and 
religious connotations. As Chris Brooks states ‘... 
there were hundreds of parish schoolrooms, often 
funded by the squire or parson, frequently designed 
by a local builder-architect, in which gothic identity 
and religious allegiance were indicated by little more 
than lancet windows and a pointed door below a 
gabled porch’.*’ At East Knoyle, however, Aitchison 


opted for a Near Eastern style which is apparent in 
the ogee arches of the small windows and in the 
stylised vase of flowers in the two large gable 
windows. 

The influence of the Near East had been evident 
in British architecture before 1870. Buildings such 
as Brighton Pavilion and Sezincote in 
Gloucestershire are conspicuous early 19th century 
examples, but from the 1830s, fostered by travel 
and an increasing number of scholarly publications, 
Islamic influence became more pervasive. It was 
particularly associated with private houses and, 
although Near Eastern styles were occasionally used 
for public buildings, it is rare to find it being 
employed for schools, especially country ones.** 
The Near Eastern style employed at East Knoyle 
school is, thus, exceptional. It appears to have 
been adopted as a direct consequence of Aitchison’s 
involvement with Frederic Leighton and is a style 
imported from fashionable circles in London. 

As already mentioned, Aitchison had built 
Leighton’s house in 1864-1866. Later, between 
1877 and 1879, Aitchison added the Arab Hall, his 
best-known work and one of his few decorative 
schemes to survive. The Arab Hall was built to house 
Leighton’s collection of 16th and 17th century 
Syrian and Iznik tiles and is one of the most lavish 
examples of 19th century taste for the Near East.” 
The style had been prefigured a few years earlier, 
however, when Leighton had asked Aitchison to 
make some alterations to the building. Between 
1869 and 1870 the studio was lengthened to the 
east and two stained glass windows were inserted 
into the walls as part of these modifications. The 
windows (Fig. 4), designed in 1870, consist of a 
row of Arabic characters with sprays of flowers 
beneath. Although the format is narrower and taller 
than the East Knoyle windows, the composition is 
similar. The flowers are also rather more geometric 
in treatment at East Knoyle but this may reflect the 
use of a harder material (stone) in the school. The 
floral composition of the windows at Leighton 
House and at East Knoyle school is reminiscent of 
the patterns found on Near Eastern pottery, 
particularly Iznik tiles of the type which Leighton 
had been collecting since the 1850s. Leighton’s 
interest in Near Eastern art and architecture had 
been awoken by his visit to Algiers in 1857 and 
intensified by further trips to Greece and Turkey in 
1867 and Egypt in 1868. On these trips he acquired 
pieces of Near Eastern pottery*’ which Aitchison, 
as a close friend and his architect, would almost 
certainly have seen. Moreover, Aitchison was 


ISLAM IN EAST KNOYLE: GEORGE AITCHISON & THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 1870-1873 Dil 


familiar with Islamic work himself since he was to century Moslem palace of La Zisa near Palermo 
base the Arab Hall at Leighton House on the 12th which he had visited in 1854. 


is 


Fig. 4 George Aitchison Design for two windows for Leighton House 1870. RIBA Library Drawings Collection 


52 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Thus, it would appear that Aitchison, having 
recently designed the windows for Leighton House, 
modified the composition for the school at East 
Knoyle. The question remains whether this was his 
own idea (possibly for economic or practical 
expediency) or was it at the suggestion of someone 
else, perhaps Alfred Seymour. It may be significant 
that, although Aitchison was more than competent 
in the Near Eastern style, he did not pursue it after 
the completion of the Arab Hall in 1879. Instead, 
the decorative schemes which occupied him from 
the late 1870s tended to employ classical forms and 
motifs or the Aesthetic Movement vocabulary of 
strong colours, ebonised wood and gilt details. It 
is accepted that many of the details at Leighton 
House were determined by the painter himself," 
and therefore one is tempted to think that the 
unusual style adopted at East Knoyle was also at 
the request of the patron, in this case, Alfred 
Seymour. In later life, Alfred Seymour, an asthma 
sufferer, spent time in Algiers’’ and an inventory of 
Knoyle House” which lists damascened brassware, 
presumably of Near Eastern origin (some of which 
was shown at South Kensington Museum in 1862), 
suggests that he might have travelled in those areas 
earlier. Did the Seymours admire the new windows 
at Leighton House and ask for something similar 
at East Knoyle because of their own interest in the 
Near East? Unfortunately, the surviving records do 
not provide the complete answer. 

It is hoped that this brief account has gone some 
way to explain the unusual architectural style of 
the school at East Knoyle. The building is a rare 
example of the adoption of the Near Eastern style 
in terms of building type and location. Moreover, 
it sheds further light on the largely undocumented 
career of the fashionable architect George Aitchison. 
The school closed in 1984. The building has lost 
its bell, both its gable ends have been reduced in 
height and the outbuildings are largely demolished. 
Fortunately, the original windows, which render the 
building so distinctive both locally and nationally, 
survive intact. 


Notes 


' There is no published monograph on Aitchison. The 
most comprehensive accounts of his career appear 
in The Builder, 21 May 1910 p.592; The Building 
News, 20 May 1910, p.683; Royal Institute of 
British Architects Journal, 3rd series, XVII, 
pp.581-3; Margaret Richardson, ‘George Aitchison 


Lord Leighton’s Architect’ Royal Institute of 
British Architects Journal, January 1980, pp.37-40; 
Joanna Banham (ed.) Encyclopedia of Interior 
Design, vol. 1 (1997), pp.16-19 

° The Building News, 20 May 1910, p. 683 

> The school is mentioned in The Victoria History of the 
Counties of England: Wiltshire vol. XI (Oxford 
University Press, 1980) p.97 & ill. opposite p.145; 
Caroline Dakers, Clouds The Biography of a 
County House (Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 
117-8; and E. Young, East Knoyle School (Salisbury 
1984), pp. 5-10, which discusses the building of the 
school but makes no mention of the architect. 

’ E. Young, East Knoyle School, pp. 5-10 

° Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office [hereafter 
WSRO] F8/600/159/1/26/1 Milford to Aitchison 3 
November 1870. Milford had already broached 
the subject with Seymour in September when he 
and ‘other gentlemen’ measured the site. E. Young, 
East Knoyle School, pp.8, 10. 

° The Salisbury Journal, 17 March 1888, p.8 

7 WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Aitchison to Milford 4 
November 1870 

8 The Building News, 15 March 1872 

° WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Milford to Aitchison 3 
November 1870 writes ‘I understand that you are 
often now in our neighbourhood at Stalbridge’ . 
See also Aitchison to Milford 4 November 1870. 
Aitchison’s obituary in The Building News, 20 May 
1910, p.683 refers to his work at ‘Stalbridge Park, 
Dorset, for Lord Richard Grosvenor’. 

'© Caroline Dakers, Clouds, p.131 

'! Tbid, pp. 46-51 

' Aitchison’s designs for 44 Belgrave Square are in the 
RIBA Drawings Collection. 

' L. & R. Ormond, Lord Leighton (Yale University 
Press, 1975), p.18 

' For the construction of Leighton House see L.& R. 
Ormond, Lord Leighton, pp.62-3, Survey of 
London vol. XX XVII Northern Kensington 
(1973), pp. 136-141. 

 L. & R. Ormond Lord Leighton, pp. 64-65 

'¢ Tbid, pp.143-4 

'7 Tsabella (died 1911) was the second daughter of Sir 
Baldwin Leighton. She had married the 
bibliographer Beriah Botfield (1807-1863) in 1857, 
then, following his death, she married Alfred 
Seymour in 1866. Her portrait (as Isabella 
Botfield) by Watts was sold, together with a 
portrait of Sir Baldwin Leighton by J. Bridge after 
Watts, in 1945 (Pictures by Old Masters and 
Historical Portraits The Properties of the late Miss 
J.M. Seymour and the late Sir Robert A. Hadfield 
Bart. and from other sources, Christie, Manson & 
Woods Ltd., 19 January 1945 lot 102 : WSRO 
1126/17). Through Isabella, Alfred Semour came 
into possession of considerable property and at the 
time of his death (1888) he owned estates in 


ISLAM IN EAST KNOYLE: GEORGE AITCHISON & THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 1870-1873 53 


Northamptonshire, Dorset, Church Stretton in 
Shropshire in addition to those at Knoyle. The 
Salisbury Journal, 17 March 1888, p.8 
'8 Margaret Richardson, ‘George Aitchison’, p. 40 
19 See Caroline Dakers, The Holland Park Circle 
Arusts and Victorian Society (Yale University Press, 
1999) 
20 WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Milford to Aitchison 3 
November 1870 
21 Tbid, Aitchison to Milford 19 November 1870 
22 [bid, Aitchison to Milford invoice stamped 18 March 
1874 
23 [bid, Milford to Aitchison 23 December 1870, 25 
December 1870, 18 February 1871 
4 Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 23 August 1871 
25 Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 15 August 1871 
2° Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 23 August 1871 
27 Tbid, Seymour to Milford 27 November 1870 
28 Ibid, Aitchison to Milford 30 November 1870. 
Milford evidently entertained the idea of building 
the school in brick initially, but Aitchison peruaded 
him to use stone: ‘if you have fully determined on 
brick I will make it of brick but it will not 
harmonise so well with the church’. Ibid, 
Aitchison to Milford 15 November 1870 
° Ibid, 4 December 1870 
30 The Salisbury Journal, 29 June 1872, p.7 
31 Ibid, 7 June 1873, p.7; WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 


to 


Account of subscriptions 

*> WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Aitchison to Milford 26 
November 1870; Aitchison to Milford 30 January 
1874 and invoice stamped 18 March 1874 

> The Salisbury Journal, 29 June 1872, p.7 

** WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Certficate signed by 
Aitchison 9 December 1872 

*® The Salisbury Journal, 7 June 1873, p.7 

*° WSRO F8/600/159/1/26/1 Aitchison to Milford 26 
November 1870 

7 Chris Brooks, The Gothic Revival (Phaidon, 1999), 
p. 204. Brooks is referring to the 1830s and 1840s, 
but the comment holds true for the 1870s. 

For 19th century taste for the Near East see John 
Sweetman, The Oriental Obsession Islamic 
Inspiration in British and American Art and 
Architecture 1500-1920 (Cambridge University 
Press, 1988); Michael Darby The Islamic 
Perspective (World of Islam Festival Trust, 1983) 

On the building of the Arab Hall at Leighton House 
see L. & R. Ormond Lord Leighton., pp. 99-101; 
Survey of London, pp. 136-141 

‘0 Frederic Leighton 1830-1896 (Royal Academy of 

Arts exhibition catalogue, 1996), pp.174,179; 
L.&R.Ormond, Lord Leighton., p.99 

4 Joanna Banham Encyclopedia of Interior Design., p.18 

® The Salisbury Journal, 17 March 1888, p.8 

® WSRO 1126/16 


w& 


re) 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


54 


Z ‘Bl4 88S 


S youas] 


sol njes4 dv HAS re cea 


youal| uoenjeag 


uonenys sil pue ays sy "[ “SL 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 54-62 


Neolithic Pits at the Beehive 


by Michael Heaton! 


with contributions by Mark Corney’, Sheila Hamilton-Dyer’, Peter Bellamy’, 


Peter Higgins’ and Ros Cleaf 


Three Neolithic pits, identified during a staged evaluation, were investigated during the construction of the 
Beehive Park and Ride facility immediately north of Salisbury, during the summer of 2000. Small quantities 
of worked flint, animal bone, plant remains, molluscs and pottery were recovered. 


INTRODUCTION 


The Beehive junction is situated 3.5km north of 
Salisbury on the A345 Amesbury road at its junction 
with the A338 Philips Lane/Portway to Andover 
(Figure 1). It occupies the crest of a dissected ridge 
between the valley of the River Avon and that of its 
tributary, the Bourne, with ground levels at 
approximately 70mOD. The site comprises land 
immediately north-east and south-west of the 
junction that became encompassed within the 
Beehive Park and Ride facility and its associated 
road modifications, a total of 4.2ha centred on SU 
144 333, within which the natural ground level was 
reduced to varying degrees during construction. It 
is 10km south of the major Neolithic monument 
complex centred on Stonehenge, and immediately 
south-east of a late Neolithic/early Bronze Age 
barrow cemetery and associated linear earthworks. 
Recent RCHME aerial photographic transcriptions 
have identified a network of undated linear features 
that cross the site, some of which appear to share 
the orientation of the road network and the post- 
Enclosure field layout recorded by the Tithes 
Survey. 


The demonstrable archaeological potential of 
the site rightly required evaluation prior to 
determination of planning permission. Following 
surface artefact collection and metal-detector 
survey, trenched evaluation of the site by ASI in 
1999 identified a range of archaeological features 
including a Neolithic pit and undated linear features 
corresponding to the alignment and relative 
disposition of those shown by aerial photography. 
A programme of works was agreed with the County 
Archaeological Service, encompassing detailed 
investigation of the Neolithic pit and others that 
were considered likely to accompany it, prior to 
commencement of construction, and ‘strip-and- 
record’ planning of the other features during the 
initial topsoil strip. 

The following is a selective description of the 
significant features revealed, followed by summaries 
of the finds and environmental reports. More 
detailed descriptions of all facets of the project, 
including the evaluation reports and post- 
excavation assessment, are deposited with the 
archive at Salisbury Museum. 


' ASI, Furlong House, 61 East Street, Warminster, BA12 9BZ * Centre for the Historic Environment, University of Bristol, 43 Woodland 
Road, Bristol, BS8 1UU *5 Suffolk Avenue, Shirley, Southampton, SO15 5EF 451 Fordington High Street, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 
1LB ° Southern Archaeological Services Ltd., Unit 7, Kingsbury House, Kingsbury Road, Southampton, SO14 OJT ° Alexander Keiller 


Museum, High Street, Avebury, SN8 1RF 


56 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


RESULTS 


The Pits 


In addition to the pit revealed during evaluation 
(502), two other pits (509 and 512) were 
investigated, together with a stratigraphically earlier 
amorphous feature (507) bearing the hallmarks of 
a tree-throw. The plan forms, profiles and 
dimensions of these are illustrated in Figures 2 and 
3. The pit fills were retained in their entirety for 
flotation separation. 

Pits 502 and 509 were each filled by single, 
homogenous deposits of friable, chalky, yellowish 
brown silty clay (503 and 508) from which small 
quantities of struck flint and pottery were recovered 


Fig. 2. Pit plans 


manually. Pit 512, the largest and deepest of the 
three, contained two deposits: an upper layer (510) 
of compact, very chalky, dark yellowish brown silty 
clay from which which animal bone, flint and 
pottery were recovered; and a lower layer (511) of 
dark greyish brown, fine silt with an ‘ashy’ texture, 
from which came pottery and flint. Both 510 and 
511 displayed white fungal mycellia lining the sides 
of worm and root channels and, in the case of 510, 
as a ‘carpet’ extending across the feature, 
approximately 100-120mm below the ground 
surface. 


Other features 


Other features were revealed around the periphery 
of the site during topsoil stripping. In the south- 
west corner, a pair of broad linear ditches, one of 
which corresponded with the 3m wide and 0.60m 
deep V-shaped ditch 1604 identified during 
evaluation. On this occasion it was revealed to be 
turning sharply to the west at Philips Lane, with a 
similar feature apparently running parallel to it on 
its west side. 


NEOLITHIC PITS AT THE BEEHIVE 


Recent animal burrow 


Sif, 


Old animal burrows 


I n 
ls 


i ier aig 
/: cal }.|¢ | i 
7 efi Sj 3 j 


Fig. 3. Pit sections 


Narrow, 0.3m deep, linear features filled with 
crushed flint and/or oyster shells, corresponding to 
those identified during field evaluation (403 and 
1606/9) were exposed in the south-west and south- 
east corners of the site. These are considered to be 
waggon ruts, an interpretation supported by their 
proximity to, and alignment with, the present roads, 
both of which are ancient routes. Running E-W 
across the northern half of the site, also 
corresponding to a feature (1103) revealed during 
field evaluation, was an amorphous linear spread 
of degraded humic chalk, considered to be the line 
of a grubbed-out hedge. 


Pottery 
by Rosamund Cleal and Mark Corney 


Twenty one sherds of pottery were recovered; all 
but one of which were recovered from the pit group, 
the other, a single sherd from Ditch 1604. Their 


509 


Pit cross-sections 


0 0.2 1m 


weights and stratigraphic distribution are 
summarised on Table 1. All were examined with a 
x10 hand lens. 

The fragment from Ditch 1604 comprised a 
small (2g) sherd of uniformly pinkish brown, sand/ 
flint tempered fabric with wavy combed external 
decoration, likely to be from a Beaker. 

The twenty sherds (123g) from the pit group 
are of a soft and slightly laminated fabric (mainly 
on the surfaces) containing rare angular, ill-sorted 
flint inclusions (maximum dimension 8mm) and 
grog. The grog is difficult to distinguish from the 
matrix but appears to be generally small (2mm). 
The exterior is orange-brown, the core dark grey 
to black and the interior surface orange with 
localised reduction. The one exception is a sherd from 
context 508, which is orange/brown throughout. One 
sherd, from 511, also bears the impressions on the 
internal surface of burnt-out organic material. 
Where the full thickness survives, the dimensions 
are notably consistent, averaging 10mm. 


Table 1: Summary of artefactual material 


Pit 502 
503 (+ sample 2000) 


Pit 512 


Pottery 

Peterborough Ware 2 (36g) 10 (20g) 
Flaked stone 

Flake - 3 
Broken flake - 1 

Blade - - 

Tool - 1 scraper 


510 (+ sample 2001) 


Pit 509 
511 (+ sample 2003) 508 (+ sample 2002) 


4 (35g) 4 (32g) 


1 1 


1 = 
1 scraper 2 retouched flakes 


58 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


The condition of the material varies: the 
material from Pits 509 and 512 being unabraded, 
whilst the sherds from Pit 502 are abraded, both 
on the edges and the surfaces, suggesting that these 
had been exposed for some time before burial. The 
fact that they conjoin indicates that little lateral 
movement can have occurred to separate them. 

All are body sherds, the larger of which are 
decorated with horizontal rows of twisted cord 
impression; each is crescentic and probably created 
by partially pushing a loop of cord into the clay. 
The variation of width of the impressions is largely 
the result of weathering (i.e. the edges of some are 
more weathered than others). The impressions are 
Z-twisted indicating the cord to be S-twisted. 

The slight variations in paste and spacing of 
the decorative motifs suggest a minimum of three 
vessels are represented in the assemblage, all of 
Peterborough Ware. 


Flaked stone 
by Peter Bellamy 


The assemblage comprises 11 pieces of flaked stone, 
recovered from three contexts (508, 510, 511) in 
two adjacent pits 509 and 512. The raw material is 
all chalk flint with both cortical and thermal surfaces 
to the nodules. The pieces are all in mint condition, 
but are heavily patinated and some are covered in 
calcareous concretion. One flake from context 510 
is burnt. All were examined macroscopically with 
the aid of ax10 hand lens ‘The classification is based 
on Andrefsky (1998) and Inizan et al. (1999). 

The assemblage composition is presented in 
Table 1. All the pieces appear to belong to the same 
non-specialised flake industry and the majority of 
the pieces recovered are core preparation and 
trimming flakes. The blades are in effect long flakes, 
rather than the result of deliberate blade 
manufacture. All pieces have plain or cortical butts 
with little evidence of platform preparation and 
almost all have feather terminations. The hammer 
mode is indeterminate. 

The number of pieces exhibiting traces of 
secondary retouch or use is very high in such a small 
assemblage, but the nature of the activities 
represented by these tools is unclear. The two 
scrapers have only minimal semi-abrupt retouch 
to round off naturally steep edges of flakes. One of 
the retouched flakes has abrupt retouch on a broken 
distal end of a long flake. The other has irregular 
serrations on the right side and small inverse 


retouch on the left proximal side, and perhaps 
should be regarded as use-wear rather than 
deliberate retouch. 

There are no diagnostic pieces present in the 
assemblage. However, the overall character of the 
technology would fit comfortably with the Later 
Neolithic date provided by the pottery. 


Animal bone 
by Sheila Hamilton-Dyer 


The material was recovered by hand and from 
the sieved fills of the pits, and is summarised in 
Table 2. 

The condition of the bone is generally very poor. 
Small calcined fragments of bone recovered from 
the sieved samples are in better condition but could 
not be identified. The small mammal remains from 
Pit 502 were also in relatively good condition which 
poses two questions. Firstly are they intrusive or 
are they, as seems likely, pit fall victims? If it is 
thought that they are contemporary then why are 
these tiny remains well preserved when larger bones 
are considerably damaged? The large mammal 
remains have meandering root-like dissolution 
tracks across their surfaces and the bone itself is 
chalky and fragile. This appearance is quite 
common for bones from similar contexts in the area 
and these bones are very similar to those from 
Crescent Copse where fungi associated with trees 
have been implicated in deposit destruction 
(Hamilton-Dyer 2000). 

Pits 502and 512 both contain a lower tusk of a 
mature female pig; indeed being left and right they 
could even be a pair. It is not possible to tell 
whether these are from wild or domestic animals, 
nor is it possible to say whether these were 
deliberate isolated items; tooth enamel is more 
resistant than bone and pig canines are especially 
large and sturdy elements which could survive 
when other material has completely disappeared. 
There is an incisor from 503 and both contain a 
few fragments of unidentified bone. The large 
fragmented bone from 510 could not be identified 
with any certainty but the size indicates a larger 
animal than pig. Cattle humerus seems the best 
match and the most likely in a Neolithic context, 
but horse and red deer should not be ruled out. 
Cattle and pig are usually the most frequent bones 
in Neolithic deposits, and pig may be associated 
with Late Neolithic ritual deposits (Richards and 
Thomas 1984). 


NEOLITHIC PITS AT THE BEEHIVE 


Table 2: Summary of palaeoenvironmental materials 


Pit 502 


503 (+ sample 2000) 


Mammal 


Pig 1 1. right female canine 


Vole 
Shrew 
Unid. 


Plant 
Chenopodium 

cf album 
Rannunculus sp. 
Plantago sp. 
Agrostema githago 
Lathyrus sp. 
Rumex sp. 
Silene spp 
Stachys sp. 
Cruciferae 
Corylus evellana 
Spp indet 


Arthropod 
Dipterous larvae 
Mirripeda 
Coleopteran elytra 
Coleoptera 
erantarsus 


Mollusca % 
Discus rotundatus 
Vallonia costata 
Carychium 
tridentatum 
O. alliarus 
A. pura 
Aegopinella nitidula 
O. cellarius 
Pomatius elegans 
Pupilla musorum 
Cochlicopa lubrica 


Punctum pygmaeum 


Cochlodina laminata 


Cochlicopa lubricella 


V. pulchella 

V. pelucida 

Arianta arbustorum 
Euconulus fulvus 
O. helveticus 
Lauria cylindracea 
Other/Indet 


7 individuals 
1 mandible + frags 


43 (2g) large mammal 


35 


Ne. .o ~) 00 CoN 


16 (1g charcoal) 
1 


Pit 512 
510 (+ sample 2001) 


67 (9g) large mammal 


4 (g) 
86 (84 charcoal) 


11 
24 (1 complete) 
1 


511 (+ sample 2003) 


1 1. left female canine 


1 burnt 1. mammal; 
3 s. mammal 


bo 


NOD 


59 


Pit 509 
508 (+ sample 2002) 


12 (charcoal) 


60 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Plant, mollusc and insect remains 
by Peter Higgins 


The entirety of each of the pits fills was immersed 
in dilute hydrogen peroxide, passed through 250 
and 500 micron sieves, the residues and flots air 
dried and then sorted under low magnification. 
Limacid slugs and the burrowing snail Ceciloides 
acicula were discarded. Fragments of slate, burnt 
clay and burnt stone, and what appears to be lime 
mortar, small enough to pass through worm 
burrows, were recovered from all samples. The 
assemblage is summarised in Table 2. Terminology 
follows Kerney (1976). 

Charcoal fragments were present in all three 
pits, the largest quantity in the upper layer (510) of 
Pit 512, but identifiable to species (hazel) only in 
Pit 502. Modern cereal fragments were present in 
large numbers in Pit 502, indicating potential 
contamination of the whole sample. Seed fragments 
were present in all deposits except the fills of Pit 
509; the assemblage varies slightly, but 
Chenopodium and Rumex were common to all. 
The former generally demand nitrogen-rich soils, 
and the latter is commonly associated with damp 
conditions. Hazel was present in quantities small 
enough to suggest a handful of nuts taken as a snack, 
the shells discarded on a fire. No other obvious food 
species are present, although some of the 
Chenopodiaceae such as fat hen are known to have 
been used as a food source in times of dearth. The 
plant remains, as a whole, are indicative of an 
unkempt area, possibly a woodland margin. 

Dipterous larvae were present in all deposits; 
all were fragmentary, and had probably passed 
through the gut of small predators, such as the 
millipedes which were present in large numbers in 
Pit 512. 

The dominant mollusc species in all deposits 
prefer shaded environments, usually characterised 
as woodland. Accepting the Neolithic date indicated 
by the artefacts, we might expect the general 
environmental background to be a dry calcareous 
landscape enjoying a temperate climate (cf. Evans, 
1991). Diversity indices (Table 3) might suggest a 
less diverse habitat affecting Pit 502. Despite the 
higher species count, the rest of the assemblage 
apparently derived from deciduous woodland, with 
diminishing diversity between the lower and upper 
layers of Pit 512. However, given the small volume 
of these features, their close spatial proximity, and 
the likelihood of contamination indicated by the 


modern cereals in Pit 502 and the building materials 
recovered from all samples, it is not possible to be 
more specific. 


DISCUSSION 


The linear features are of reasonably well- 
documented forms, and need not detain us much 
further. However it is pertinent to observe that, 
whilst corresponding in disposition and form with 
RCHME transcriptions of aerial photographic 
evidence, they are uniformly 12m-15m north and 
east of the positions suggested by those plots, a 
consistent discrepancy noted at other sites in the 
area (Heaton 1997). Whilst this might be an 
acceptable level of accuracy, it has methodological 
ramifications for the design of field evaluation 
strategies based on aerial photographic plots. The 
Neolithic pits, also, are a well documented, if still 
poorly understood (cf. Whittle 1988, 55-8), form 
of archaeological feature. Though this group is, 
perhaps, too small and restricted in deposit type to 
support discursive analysis of its content, some 
consideration of the extent to which these features 
fit into emerging theoretical models is required. 

With the exception of the singular Mesolithic 
examples at Stonehenge car park, small pits of this 
sort are a later phenomenon. They are commonly 
associated with earlier Neolithic pottery, 
Peterborough Ware and Grooved Ware, and less so 
with Beaker material. They are nothing to do with 
rubbish disposal, in the modern sense, nor with 
storage (Thomas 1999, 64). 

Though not conducive to detection through 
extensive survey, small pit groups of this sort are 
common in the central and eastern shires of 
southern England; and examples are also known in 
increasing numbers from the Midlands and 
northern England (e.g. Manby 1974, Tavener 
1996). They typically occur in small groups of less 
than half a dozen, but larger groups have been 
identified at settlement sites, as at Yarnton (Hey 
1997) and Broome Heath (Wainwright 1972). They 
have been recorded at numerous sites within the 
middle reaches of the Avon valley and adjoining 
areas of chalk upland in Dorset; within a 10km 
radius of the present site examples have been 
identified at Amesbury, Ratfyn, Winterbourne 
Gunner, Larkhill, Rollestone, King Barrow Ridge 
at Stonehenge, and Coneybury to name just a few 
(Stone and Young 1948, Harding 1988, Cleal and 
Allen 1994, Thomas 1999). The oil pipeline that 


NEOLITHIC PITS AT THE BEEHIVE 


runs through the present site exposed a group of 
three in 1967, less than 50m north of the present 
group, whilst a water pipeline under construction 
in the Spring of 2002 has revealed more at the base 
of Old Sarum, 200m to the south-west on the edge 
of the river valley (Cave-Penney pers. comm.). 

Whilst contemporaneous settlement contexts 
have been identified at Yarnton (Hey 1997) and 
Broome Heath (Wainwright 1972), in Wessex they 
are stratigraphically isolated but appear spatially 
proximate to larger monument groups. The latter 
may be simple bias: there are more evaluations and 
excavations close to major monuments, and pits 
are always an unanticipated result. Within this area 
of the Avon valley, they form the principal repository 
for Peterborough and Grooved Ware pottery, but 
never both (Thomas 1999, 176-7). Peterborough 
Ware, as occurs here, appears to be more secular in 
its geographic distribution compared with Grooved 
Ware which is frequently associated with major 
monuments (Thomas 1991), and it is the dominant 
fabric in the southern quarter of Darvill’s 
quadripartite Stonehenge landscape 
characterisation (1997), within which this site is 
situated. Profiles indicate them to have been 
excavated and backfilled rapidly; the worked flint 
within them typically includes a high proportion of 
finished tools; the pottery invariably comprises 
(deliberately?) broken fragments of several vessels; 
the animal remains represent high meat-yield parts 
of domesticates, often the same joint repeatedly; 
whilst the plant remains are generally the opposite, 
representing non-food species. These assemblages 
are contained within only one or two layers of ash- 
rich soils, though neither the features nor their 
components are burnt themselves. Thomas (1999, 
64) considers the simple stratification to directly 
reflect the manner of backfilling, though some post- 
depositional mixing is likely in such shallow features, 
that would not pertain in their deeper Iron Age 
cousins (Heaton and Cleal 2000). 

These characteristics describe perfectly the pits 
revealed at this site. Although, admittedly, the 
animal bone assemblage here is too small to support 
any archaeological conclusions other than that the 
features have been burrowed into by shrews and 
voles, the floral material is not food-related and a 
high proportion of the worked flint displays 
secondary dressing, whilst the Peterborough Ware 
is compatible with the site’s 10km distance from 
the major monument groups to the north. The pits 
are the result of deliberate actions (you cannot dig 
a neat hole accidentally) and, whilst the ash and 


61 


artefacts are mementoes of the cultural activities, 
the composition of the fills may not necessarily be 
intentional. That these features contain only 
Peterborough Ware, indicates only that 
Peterborough Ware alone was being used in this 
area (cf. Darvill 1997); whilst Moore’s (1996) 
essay on use of fire in Neolithic landscape 
transformation provides a better explanation than 
feasting for the ash content of many - but not all - 
Neolithic pits. 

So, what are they for? Thomas (1999) has 
posited a non-utilitarian interpretation of these 
apparently functionless features, and the present 
author concurs with him entirely. They are a form 
of monument, but a personal one not intended to 
be seen, the monumentality of which is expressed 
and realised at the moment of creation as our 
Neolithic forebears become self-consciously aware 
of themselves as individuals in a landscape that they 
are transforming, slowly diverging from the rest of 
the natural world. They are, in effect, a form of 
‘Junk Installation Art’. As such, they tell us more 
about the experience of the artist, than his or her 
aspiration. 

However, the author cautiously suggests, on a 
technical note, that the simple stratification of such 
small features is as likely to be the result of post- 
depositional modifications, as of single-episode 
back‘illing in the Neolithic. These features, at only 
0.3m — 0.6m below the surface, are within the biotic 
zone of soils that have been under continuous 
cultivation for at least two thousand years. 
Furthermore, in addition to the efforts of smaller 
rodents evident here, extensive fungal mycellia were 
noted by the excavators and by Hamilton-Dyer, the 
effects of which on shallow archaeological deposits 
have already been broached by the author (Heaton 
and Cleal 2000). 

Methodologically, there is much here to comfort 
those struggling to match the intent and 
mechanisms of PPG16 with the objectives of 
archaeology and the reality of major construction 
schemes. The open-area manner of construction 
facilitated observation of the entire evaluated area; 
the absence of significant deposits from most of 
the site indicates that the combined results of aerial 
photography, fieldwalking and linear trenching, on 
this occasion, were reliable for the purposes of 
characterising the generality of the site’s 
archaeology, if not the detail. Nonetheless, it is 
salutary to note that had Trench 5 been positioned 
one metre to the west, Feature 502 would not have 
been revealed. 


62 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


References 


ANDREFSKY, W., 1998, Lithics: macroscopic 
approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press 

BARBER, M., 1997, ‘Landscapes, the Neolithic, and 
Kent’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 77- 
85. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

BOYCOTT, A.E., 1934, The habitats of land mollusca 
n Britain, Journal of Ecology 22 

CARTER, S., 1990, The stratification and taphonomy of 
shells in calcarous soils: the implications for land snail 
analysis in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological 
Science 17, 495-507 

CLEAL, R.M.J., and ALLEN, M.J., 1994, Investigation 
of tree-damaged barrows on King Barrow Ridge and 
Luxenborough Plantation, Amesbury. WANHM 87, 
54-84 

DARVILL,T., 1997, “Neolithic Landscapes: identity and 
definition’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 
1-13. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

DOBNEY, K., HALL, A., KENWARD, H., and 
MILLES, A., 1992, A working classification of sample 
types for environmental archaeology. Circaea 9 

EVANS, J.G., 1991, ‘An approach to the interpretation 
of dry-ground and wet-ground molluscan taxenes 
from central southern England’, in D.R. Harris and 
K.D. Thomas (eds), Modelling Ecological Change, 
75-89. London: Institute of Archaeology 

HAMILTON-DYER, S. 2000, ‘Animal bone’, in M. 
Heaton and R. Cleal, ‘Beaker pits at Crescent Copse, 
near Shrewton, Wiltshire, and the effects of arboreal 
fungi on archaeological remains’, 78-9. WANHM 93, 
71-81 

HARDING, P., 1988, The chalk plaque pit, Amesbury. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 320-326 

HEATON, M., 1997, ‘Milston Farm Buildings, 
Amesbury, Wiltshire’. Non-publication watching brief 
report ref: ASI 3042, Wilts County SMR 

HEATON, M., and CLEAL, R.M.J., 2000, Beaker pits 
at Crescent Copse, near Shrewton, Wiltshire, and the 
effects of arboreal fungi on archaeological remains. 
WANHM 93, 71-81 


HEY, G., 1997, ‘Neolithic settlement at Yarnton, 
Oxfordshire’, in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic 
Landscapes, 99-111. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

INIZAN, M.-L., REDURON-BALLINGER, M., 
ROCHE, H., and TIXIER, J., 1999, Technology and 
terminology of knapped stone (Préhistoire de la Pierre 
Taillée; 5). Meudon: CNRS 

KERNEY, M.P., 1976, Atlas of the Non-Marine Mollusca 
of the British Isles. London 

MANBY, T., 1974, Grooved Ware Sites in Yorkshire and 
the North of England. Oxford: British Archaeological 
Reports, British Series 9 

MOORE, J., 1997, “The Infernal Cycle of Fire Ecology’, 
in P. Topping (ed), Neolithic Landscapes, 33-40. 
Oxford: Oxbow Books 

RICHARDS C. and THOMAS J., 1984, ‘Ritual activity 
and structured deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex,’ 
in R. Bradley & J. Gardiner (eds), Neolithic Studies, 
189-218. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 
British Series 133 

STONE, J.F.S., and YOUNG, W.E.V., 1948, Two pits of 
Grooved Ware date near Woodhenge. WANHM 52, 
287-304 

TAVENER, N., 1996, ‘Evidence of Neolithic activity near 
Marton-le-Moor, North Yorkshire’, in P. Frodsham 
(ed.), Neolithic Studies in No-Man’s Land, 183-7. 
Newcastle: Northumberland Archaeological Group 

THOMAS, K.D., 1985, ‘Land snail analysis in 
archaeology: theory and practice’, in N.R.J. Fieller, 
D.D. Gilbertson and N.G.A. Ralph (eds), 
Palaeobiological investigations: research design, 
methods and data analysis, 131-56. Oxford: British 
Archaeological Reports, International Series 131 

THOMAS, J., 1991, Rethinking the Neolithic. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

THOMAS, J., 1999, Understanding the Neolithic. 
London: Routledge 

TOPPING, P., (ed.) 1997, Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: 
Oxbow Books 

WAINWRIGHT, G.J., 1972, The excavation of a Neolithic 
settlement on Broome Heath, Ditchingham, Norfolk. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 1-97 

WHITTLE, A., 1988, Problems in Neolithic Archaeology. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 63-68 


Dragonflies in Wiltshire — Odonata recording 


past, present and future 
by Steve Covey 


A list of the different species is preceded by a brief history of dragonfly recording in the county. The more 
important species are then picked out for special mention and detailed information provided about their 
biology and habitats. Finally, a plea is made for more records. 


INTRODUCTION 


The bright, jewel-like appearance of dragonflies on 
hot, languid summer days inevitably makes them 
one of our most popular insects. And yet there are 
still a great many gaps in our understanding of this 
fascinating order, including the detailed distribution 
of each species. On a national scale the broader 
distributional ranges are now quite well known and 
documented (Merritt et al. 1996), as are detailed 
distributions for some counties such as Surrey and 
Dorset. In Wiltshire, however, the fauna is poorly 
understood largely because it has not had the benefit 
of a long term, sustained recording effort. 

Historical records have come from two main 
sources: the Reports of the Marlborough College 
Natural History Society between 1900 and 1934, 
which cover the Marlborough area with a few odd 
records from Coate Water (or Coate Reservoir, as 
it was then known) at Swindon, and A Check List 
of Dragonflies and Damselflies Recorded in the 
Immediate Neighbourhood of Dauntsey’s School, 
Wilts ‘published’ by Dauntsey’s School Natural 
History Society. (Darby, M., 2002). These records 
cover the years 1932 — 1947 and are primarily from 
the area around West Lavington. A few records from 
the Devizes area are also included. 

The Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records 
Centre (WSBRC) holds records covering the period 
1963 to 1988. The bulk of these date from the 1980s 


when there was a joint initiative by the British 
Dragonfly Society (BDS) and the National 
Biological Records Centre at Monks Wood to 
produce a national distribution atlas (Merritt et al., 
1996). 

Since becoming county recorder in 1997 I have 
become the main source of new records for the 
county together with a growing network both of 
local observers making casual contributions, and 
of more formal recorders, often bird enthusiasts 
looking for additional interests during the ‘quiet’ 
summer period. Increased interest in dragonflies 
has been stimulated recently by the publication of 
two excellent, truly portable, field guides (Brooks 
and Lewington, 1997 and Powell, 1999). 


A BRIEF NATURAL 
HISTORY 


Dragonflies form the order Odonata meaning 
‘toothed jaws’. They are among the oldest of the 
winged insects with fossil records going back to the 
Carboniferous period 300 million years ago. At that 
time some of these Dragonfly ancestors were true 
giants achieving wingspan measurements of 70cms 
— nothing else came close during this period. In 
Britain today the largest dragonfly is the Emperor 
with a 10cm wingspan. 

The Odonata are divided into three suborders 
of which two occur in Britain and Europe: the 


130 White Edge Moor, Liden, Swindon SN3 6LY 


64 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Zygoptera, or damselflies, and the Anisoptera, or 
dragonflies. To avoid confusion Dragonfly with a 
capital ‘D’ is the term used to cover both groups. 
The main differences between these two groups 
(regarding the adult flying insect) are size and the 
way the wings are held at rest. Damselflies are 
smaller and fold their wings back along the 
abdomen; dragonflies are generally much larger, 
more robust insects and perch with wings held out 
at right angles to the body, although there are some 
exceptions to this rule. 

It is not generally realised that the adult flying 
stage is comparatively short in the Dragonfly’s 
overall life cycle. Around two months is the longest 
life span and can be as little as two weeks for some 
of the Zygoptera. The aquatic larval, or nymph stage 
is generally much longer lasting from a few months 
to anything up to five years in some of the larger 
dragonflies. It is for this aquatic stage that we have 
the least amount of knowledge, including the ability 
to accurate identify similar species. That is why most 
recording is carried out by observing the adult 
insect, although different criteria are required for 
proof of breeding as discussed below. 

The Dragonfly larva is a fearsome beast and in 
some water bodies is at the top of the food chain. It 
has a modified lower jaw capable of being projected 
forward at great speed to impale its hapless victim, 
which can include prey as large as minnows and 
sticklebacks. Some species feed by actively hunting 
through the aquatic ‘jungle’, while others use the 
ambush technique, lying in wait among the bottom 
ooze and detritus before lunging out at passing prey. 
During its larval period the Dragonfly undergoes 
several moults, called instars. It is at the end of the 
final instar level, when certain conditions are right, 
such as day length and temperature, that 
metamorphosis is triggered. The most dramatic 
change is from a gill breathing creature to an air 
breathing one, and, after a certain point, the 
dragonfly has to emerge even if weather conditions 
worsen. 

While the wings and body are expanding and 
drying a Dragonfly is at its most vulnerable. 
Consequently, as soon as it is able it flies quickly 
away from the emergence site, leaving its empty 
skin or exuvia behind. Some fly up for hundreds of 
metres and are dispersed over a wide area by strong 
winds. This pioneering ability is required by those 
species that rely upon small, still water bodies that 
may dry up or be filled in. Other species move off 
into meadows, woodland clearings or forest rides 
where they will feed up and mature before returning 


Exuvia of Southern Hawker (Aeshna cyanea) 


to their natal site to mate. This is because for the 
first few days after emergence the wings in particular 
are liable to damage during territorial or mating 
clashes. The full breeding colours develop over a 
period of time. The bright coloured areas on a 
freshly emerged, or teneral, Dragonfly are generally 
duller with most males looking like females initially, 
although there are some exceptions where both 
male and female are equally brightly hued when 
mature. 

Mating and breeding strategies vary but usually 
occur over or near water, males of some species 
being territorial, but others wandering opportunists. 
Once mated the females oviposit by one of two 
methods; some species insert eggs into plant 
material while others just dip their abdomens into 
water and permit the eggs to wash off. The egg 
usually develops over a two to five week period, 
although the eggs of some late summer/autumn 
species arrest development — go into diapause — and 
wait until the following spring before the prolarva 
emerges and the whole cycle starts again. 


THE SPECIES LIST 


There are currently forty-nine species on the British 
and Irish list plus another three that became extinct 
during the 20th Century. Thirty of these have been 
recorded in Wiltshire, i.e. 61%, which is quite im- 
pressive when one considers that the county is often 
perceived as ‘dry’. The Wiltshire list as at August 
2002 is as follows: 


ZYGOPTERA 

Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo (L.) 

Banded Demoiselle Calopteryx splendens (Harris) 

Emerald Damselfly Lestes sponsa (Hansemann) 

White-legged Damselfly Platycnemis pennipes (Pallas) 

Large Red Damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer) 

Small Red Damselfly Ceriagrion tenellum (de Villers) 

Azure Damselfly Coenagrion puella (L.) 

Variable Damselfly Coenagrion pulchellum (van der 
Linden) 


DRAGONFLIES IN WILTSHIRE —- ODONATA RECORDING PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 65 


Common Blue Damselfly Enallagma cyathigerum 
(Charpentier) 

Scarce Blue-tailed Damselfly Ischnura pumilio 
(Charpentier) 

Blue-tailed Damselfly Ischnura elegans (van der 
Linden) 

Red-eyed Damselfly Erythromma najas (Hansemann) 


ANISOPTERA 

Hairy Dragonfly Brachytron pratense (Muller) 

Common Hawker Aeshna juncea (L.) 

Migrant Hawker Aeshna mixta Latreille 

Southern Hawker Aeshna cyanea (Muller) 

Brown Hawker Aeshna grandis (L.) 

Emperor Dragonfly Anax imperator Leach 

Club-tailed Dragonfly Gomphus vulgatissimus (L.) 

Golden-ringed Dragonfly Cordulegaster boltonii 
(Donovan) 

Downy Emerald Cordulia aenea (L.) 

Four-spotted Chaser Libellula quadrimaculata (L.) 

Scarce Chaser Libellula fulva Muller 

Broad-bodied Chaser Libellula depressa (L.) 

Black-tailed Skimmer Orthetrum cancellatum (L.) 

Keeled Skimmer Orthetrum coerulescens (Fab.) 

Common Darter Sympetrum striolatum (Charpentier) 

Ruddy Darter Sympetrum sanguineum (Muller) 

Black Darter Sympetrum danae (Sulzer) 

Red-veined Darter Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys) 


Not all the species listed have proof of breeding at 
any or all of the sites from which they have been 
recorded. The criteria currently required by the 
British Dragonfly Society for a species to be given 
breeding status are: a) final instar larvae to be 
present in the water body concerned. b) exuviae 
on emergent vegetation. c) very recently emerged 
adults by the emergence site. As will be appreciated, 
obtaining this information requires much more time 
than just observing flying adults. The effort so far 
has been concentrated on establishing the presence 
or absence of species at sites, in order to obtain a 
broad coverage of the county reasonably quickly. It 
is to be expected that the commoner species, such 
as Broad-bodied chaser, Southern hawker, and 
Large Red and Blue-tailed damselflies will occur at 
most suitable water bodies — particularly garden 
ponds — and will be widespread across the county. 
The scarcer species will require more diligent 
searching and not a little detective work. 

Some of our scarcer species are described in 
more detail below. It has not been thought 
worthwhile to include distribution maps at this 
stage. 


Variable Damselfly is represented by only one 
record for Wiltshire published in the Report of the 
Marlborough College Natural History Society, 81, 
1932 (pp.36-37). The specimen was captured on 
22 July 1932 at a pond behind the scout hut at 
College Field. The specimen has not been located 
to confirm the determination. 

The nearest known colonies are on the 
Somerset Levels, which gives some idea of this 
species’ habitat preference for drainage ditches or 
slow moving rivers near grazing meadows (at least 
in this region). Similar habitat exists in Wiltshire, 
namely the Britford water meadows just south of 
Salisbury, which have been searched on two 
occasions without success. One observer thought 
he saw this damselfly at Jones’s Mill, the Wiltshire 
Wildlife Trust (WWT) reserve near Pewsey, on 14 
July 2000, but no others have been detected since. 
Identification of the species is hampered by the fact 
that it can resemble both the Azure and Common 
Blue damselflies — hence the name! 


Scarce Blue-tailed Damselfly has not been 
recorded in Wiltshire for some years. It is most often 
found in ephemeral aquatic habitats such as shallow 
water areas with little vegetation, and valley mire 
seepages subject to disturbance. Man-made sites 
include mineral extraction workings with spring- 
line seepages and small pools such as tyre ruts. This 
would explain why all of our records, which span 
the years 1985-88, have come from the Cotswold 
Water Park (CWP) in actively worked pits. In 1988 
I found a colony utilising a caterpillar tractor rut 
2m long by 0.5m wide! The following year it was 
gone. Unfortunately, since that time, access to such 
sites has been almost impossible due to more 
stringent Health & Safety Regulations. There was 
a possible sighting at a derelict industrial site at 
Bradford-on-Avon two years ago, but this was not 
confirmed and has not been repeated. 


Scarce Blue-tailed Damselfly (Ischnura pumilio), 
Cotswold Water Park, 6 June 1988 


66 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


This diminutive insect is also shy and retiring 
which does not help in finding it — even at known 
locations. Neither does the fact that it looks quite 
similar to the very common Blue-tailed Damselfly! 
It is, in all probability, still present at suitable pits 
in the CWP and possibly elsewhere in the county. 
‘To give an example, the national dragonfly recorder 
found a colony using disturbed spring-line seepages 
at a chalk quarry near Luton; chalk workings exist 
in plenty in Wiltshire and may prove to be useful 
sites for searching for the species. 


Hairy Dragonfly usually breeds in similar 
habitats to the Variable Damselfly. The only records 
for the Hairy Dragonfly in Wiltshire are from 
Braydon Pond, near Minety, in 1963 and 1967, and 
on the Kennet and Avon canal, near the Dundas 
Aqueduct, in1982.There was a possible sighting of 
a pair on 6 July 1999 in Gopher Wood on the North 
Pewsey Downs. This is quite a late date for the 
species as it is an early flyer for an Aeshnid — May 
and June — but July records are not unknown. Since 
this dragonfly is known to be expanding its range it 
will be one to watch out for during the coming 
seasons. Because of its early flight period, however, 
it can be easily overlooked and there may already 
be undiscovered sites for it in Wiltshire. Please 
contact the writer as soon as possible if you see a 
Hawker-type dragonfly in May/early June. 


Downy Emerald, which is another early emerger, 
is one of the recording success stories of the last 
decade in Wiltshire. The only records I was aware 
of when I became recorder were a vague record 
from Chippenham in June 1940 and from Braydon 
Pond on 20 June 1964. In 1997 I received records 
from the voluntary wardens of Blackmoor Copse 
WW'T reserve, which stated that Downys had been 
present at the reserve’s pond since 1995 as a 
response to woodland clearance the previous winter 
letting in more sunlight. I visited the site and 
confirmed its presence. Then, later that year at a 
County Recorders meeting, a chance comment led 
to the discovery of an environmental report for 
Stourhead NT site which mentioned the presence 
of Downy Emerald on the ornamental lakes in 1990. 
A visit in June 1998 confirmed a strong colony 
which had obviously been present for some years. 

Given the presence of colonies in the south-east 
and south-west of the county, it seemed likely that 
there must be colonies in between. This soon proved 
to be the case when the county bird recorder was 
mist netting in Clanger Wood near Westbury and 


saw a Downy patrolling a ride. Studying the relevant 
OS map showed a lake nearby at Fulling Bridge - 
Farm where a visit in June 1999 uncovered yet more 
of the species. Since then they have also been found 
at Landford Heath SSSI. An old sand quarry near 
Great Bedwyn, mentioned in the Marlborough 
College Reports as having a thriving colony in 1933 
and 1934 (the last year Odonata were mentioned in 
the Reports) is now overgrown, and when I visited it 
in 2002 - in less than suitable weather conditions - 
no Downy Emeralds were in evidence. Since some 
Dragonflies can be quite tenacious, further visits will 
be made to see if it is still hanging on there. 


IF 


The Lily pond, Stourhead (National Trust), Downy 
Emerald breeding site, 12 June 1998 


Any large pond or lake with trees partly 
surrounding the shoreline could hold this species 
and I feel sure other colonies will be discovered in 
the county. In the north, for example, they occur 
just over the border in the Gloucestershire section 
of the CWP, so that further searching there may 
prove worthwhile. 


Scarce Chaser, as its name suggests, is one of the 
UR’s rarer species: there are only six discrete 
populations all in south and south-east England. 
This is primarily a riverine insect, its preference 
being for the mature floodplain/watermeadow 
stages, and Wiltshire is privileged in having one of 
these colonies along a stretch of the Bristol Avon 
from Melksham, downstream past Bradford-on- 
Avon, and on into Somerset. Interestingly, it is not 
present along the whole section, there being some 
puzzling gaps — puzzling because, to the human eye, 
the stretches where they occur look the same as those 
on which they have not been found. 

Until 2001 the Scarce Chaser had only been 
found on the main river. In June of that year, 
however, an observer found the species on a stretch 


DRAGONFLIES IN WILTSHIRE — ODONATA RECORDING PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 67 


Scarce Chaser (Libellula fulva), female 


at its confluence with the River Biss just west of 
Hilperton Marsh. She recorded several chasers on 
the Biss but none on the adjacent part of the Avon. 
This may have been due to the severe flooding 
which occurred in the area the previous winter 
displacing larvae from the main river. Sustained 
observation over the coming seasons should show 
whether this new colony will establish itself or 
migrate back to the Avon. 

Given the nature of the river one would think 
the Salisbury Avon would also support this species. 
It does occur further downstream in Hampshire/ 
Dorset but none have so far been found in Wiltshire, 
although possible sightings have highlighted the 
potential of watermeadows south of the Britford 
complex. Again, local observers would be able to 
provide the sustained effort required. 


Small Red Damselfly, Golden-ringed 
Dragonfly, Common Hawker, Keeled 
Skimmer and Black Darter are a group of 
species that, while not particularly rare on a national 
scale, are scarce in Wiltshire. This is purely because 
the habitat they all require, acid bog and heath, is 
available in only small pockets. One thinks initially 


of the extreme southeast tip, where the New Forest 
just spills over the county boundary, which contains 
such sites as Landford Bog and Landford Heath, 
but due to little quirks of geology some of these 
species can also be found in other parts of Wiltshire. 

Longleat Forest has long been planted with large 
tracts of conifers and these, combined with a 
sandstone ridge running through the area, provides 
the right conditions in places for Golden-ringed 
Dragonfly and Keeled Skimmer. Black Darter has 
also been reported from within the Centre Parcs 
complex. 

Spye Park/Chittoe Heath is another area 
situated on a sandstone outcrop and although 
breeding sites have yet to be discovered, there have 
been regular sightings of Golden-ringed Dragonfly 
and Common Hawker in woodland rides and 
meadows. 


Golden-ringed Dragonfly (Cordulegaster boltonii), 
Landford Heath SSSI, 14 August 1997 


There may be other oases of low pH value in 
the county, and the writer would be pleased to hear 
of such sites. 


Red-veined Darter brings the Wiltshire recording 
effort up to date. Until this year (2002) it was absent 
from the county list and before the mid-1990s was 
not considered as a likely candidate. It is 
predominantly a southern European species but is 
a regular migrant to northern Europe, often 
reaching Britain, but in small numbers with mostly 
a south-westerly coastal distribution. Then, in 1995 
and subsequent years, larger influxes occurred and 
a few regular breeding colonies were established 
including inland sites such as Pirton Pools near 
Worcester. The usual explanation for this range 


68 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


expansion is global warming, and both Holland and 
Northern France now have more substantial 
populations than in the past which may be acting 
as the reservoir for our increases. 

Armed with this background knowledge most 
observers now look out for this species from June 
onwards. One recorder was rewarded for his 
vigilance by spotting an adult male at a small lake 
in Chippenham on 1 June. There were several other 
sightings in southern England at the same time 
suggesting that this individual was part of an 
obvious influx. A second male was seen on 17 June, 
again coinciding with other sightings elsewhere, by 
the same person — but frustratingly both had 
vanished before anyone else could enjoy them. All 
was quiet for many weeks until finally the recorder’s 
persistence paid off with a sighting of a teneral male 
on 31 August, quickly followed by three more 
records; 1 male and 2 females, all freshly emerged. 


(SOUS a 


Chippenham Lake, Red-veined Darter site, 2 September 
2002 


The lake was created as a landscape feature for 
a business park adjacent to it. It is fairly shallow so 
heats up quite quickly — vital for a species which is 
double brooded and so requires these conditions 
for rapid larval development. Most of the second 
brood will disperse away from the emergence site 
so that there are no guarantees for a continuous 
presence though one hopes so. 


THE FUTURE 


Global warming offers the potential for several 
additions to the Wiltshire list. The Small Red-eyed 
Damselfly (Erythromma viridulum), has already 
started to colonise the south-eastern counties and 


is gradually spreading westwards (Covey, 2001). 
Others are ‘waiting in the wings’, so to speak, just 
across the English Channel. 

While the discovery of new species is always an 
exciting prospect, it is important not to lose sight 
of the prime function of the recording scheme, 
which is to map and understand the distribution 
and densities of our regular species and to provide 
data, for example to aid in combating threats from 
development. To this end further developments to 
existing methods of electronic data storage and 
transfer will be very beneficial, particularly as 
compatibility and ‘user friendliness’ improves. But, 
of course, before that one has to have records! There 
is a growing band of dragonfly observers, but more 
are always needed and, with this in mind, I 
undertake several field identification workshops 
each year under the auspices of the BRC. As an 
added stimulus it is hoped that a regular newsletter 
will soon be produced including provisional 
distribution maps. Putting a dot on a blank area of 
a map is often a good incentive for going out in to 
the field! In the longer term, it is also hoped to 
produce a county atlas. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would like to thank Michael Darby for providing 
me with the sources for the historical records, and 
WANHS Library for helping locate the relevant 
volumes. I am also grateful to all those landowners 
who grant access to their sites. But most of all I 
wish to thank all those who have sent and continue 
to send me records. 


Bibliography 


BROOKS, S. and LEWINGTON, R., 1997. Field Guide 
to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Great Britain 
and Ireland. Hampshire: British Wildlife Publishing. 

COVEY, S., 2001, ‘Red-eyed in Wiltshire’, in Darby, M., 
(ed.), Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity 6, 13-15. 

DARBY, M.., 2002, ‘A Brief History of Dauntsey’s School 
Natural History Society (fl.1933-1963)’, in WANHM 
95, 259-268. 

MERRITT, R., MOORE, N.W. and EVERSHAM, B.C., 
1996. Atlas of the dragonflies of Britain and Ireland. 
London: HMSO. 

POWELL, D., 1999. A Guide to the Dragonflies of Great 
Britain. Essex: Arlequin Press. 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 69-76 


The Chantry of the Holy Trinity at Hungerford 


by Norman Hidden 


The history of a well documented 14th-century chantry foundation in Hungerford parish church is described. 
It was established by Sir Robert de Hungerford, who endowed it with land at Hopgrass, and elsewhere in 
Wiltshire and Berkshire adjacent to Hungerford. The implications of the chantry for landownership, taxation 
and clerical provision and discipline are discussed, and the complicated descent of its lands is traced after 


the chantry’s dissolution. 


A chantry, at its simplest, was a service which arose 
from an endowment for a priest to sing masses or 
obits for the souls of the dead. This involved a 
cantarist or chantry priest and a place where these 
obits might be sung. Sometimes a chantry chapel 
was built especially for this office; more often use 
was made of an altar or chapel of an existing church. 
Income from the endowment was used primarily 
to provide a living for the cantarist, but also to 
furnish the altar or chapel where necessary. A 
foundation charter usually laid down conditions for 
ensuring the exact and proper use of the 
endowment throughout the years to come. 

Towards the close of the thirteenth century 
foundation of a chantry came to be seen by the 
wealthy as an act which combined spiritual and 
worldly aspirations, both piety and fame. For well- 
to-do landowners it provided a way to dispose of 
surplus wealth and at the same time to ensure their 
own spiritual salvation. It enabled them to 
acknowledge their subservience to God and to calm 
their fears of purgatory or everlasting hell. The very 
permanence of the institution they thus created 
opened up an endless vista of rents and income, 
chaplain after chaplain, prayer upon prayer, until 
the end of time. In this way they set up a sort of 
eternity of their own selves against the eternity of 
death, the murmur of continual prayers against 
everlasting silence, the illumination of an undying 
wax candle against an endless darkness. 


Men who could afford the luxury of such a mind- 
blowing idea hastened to fulfil it. With some, 
however, the dream became an obsession. In the 
14th century Sir Robert de Hungerford, who had 
acquired vast estates in Berkshire, Wiltshire, 
Gloucestershire, and Somerset, showed in his later 
years a zealous fervour for the foundation of one 
chantry after another. His foundations included 
chantries at Calne, Easton, Heytesbury, all in 
Wiltshire, another at Hungerford, and finally the 
chantry which bears his name in the great cathedral 
of Salisbury. 

Sir Robert de Hungerford had connections, 
particularly through landownership, with each of 
these places where he founded a chantry. The 
chantry at Hungerford was sited within the parish 
church, but his estate (later known as Hopgrass) 
lay just within the Wiltshire border on the northern 
or Wiltshire bank of the River Dun. The church, 
then as now, stood on the river’s opposite or 
Berkshire bank, clearly in view to him and his 
manorial tenants. It is with this chantry at 
Hungerford that the present paper is primarily 
concerned. Its foundation is particularly well 
documented and may serve as a good example of 
the mind-set of its founder; and there are good 
records of its subsequent history during the two 
hundred or so years before its dissolution. 


99 Pole Barn Lane, Frinton on Sea CO13 9NQ 


70 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


That this foundation was not purely an exercise 
in altruistic piety by Sir Robert de Hungerford may 
be illustrated by the fact that an earlier chantry of 
St Mary already existed in Hungerford, available 
for anyone who paid a small obit, ‘for the celebration 
of the mass in the chapel of St Mary and for one 
wax light before the altar of St Anne in Hungerford 
church’.' His intention was both more specific and 
more personal, viz. that the chantry priest should 
celebrate divine service ‘daily before sunrise’ in 
honour of the Holy Trinity, and should pray for the 
souls of himself and Geva his wife, those of his 
ancestors and — an addendum required by the 
church — of all the faithful departed.* Thus the 
chantry of the Holy Trinity was essentially a private 
foundation, whose services were at a secluded hour, 
whose explicit function was to honour the Holy 
Trinity, but implicitly to glorify the Hungerford 
family name (he had no children) and to maintain 
their obits for ever. 

The chantry was situated on the south side of 
the nave of the parish church. It contained a 
monument of its founder, resting on an altar-tomb 
within an elegant arched canopy. Above it was an 
inscription in Norman French, which promised that 
those who prayed for Sir Robert de Hungerford 
while he lived and for his soul after death should be 
granted (on the word of fourteen bishops) 550 days 
of pardon. There is no mention of any of his manors 
in the inscription, it will be noted, and no wifely 
replica alongside him in the tomb. The guarantee 
by the fourteen named bishops and the inducement 
of 550 days’ pardon to pray for the knight, alive or 
dead, foreshadow the hard sell and cunningly 
devised warranties of more material benefits which 
are familiar to a later age. This practical approach 
in Norman French is itself contained within an 
outer circle which returns to the piety of the Latin 
creed, stating a belief in resurrection, in the unity 
of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and, of course, in 
Judgement ‘by works.’ It was by his ‘works’, in 
particular the foundation of chantries, that Sir 
Robert particularly hoped to be saved. 

Walter Money, in his Historical Sketch of the 
Town of Hungerford (1894), gave a detailed 
account of the chantry as it once stood on the south 
side of the church, and then described how the 
marble tablet in his day was lying on the floor of 
the chapel on the north side of the church, along 
with the badly mutilated effigy of Sir Robert. The 
elegant canopy had disappeared. Money’s 
description makes the best of what remains from 
such vandalism. 


This most interesting sculptured figure, which is 
unfortunately much maimed, particularly in the lower 
extremities, represents the departed knight as cross- 
legged, at his feet a lion, the hands conjoined in prayer 
on his breast, on his left arm a middle-sized shield, a 
sword and surcoat, with the head resting on pillows. 
Although so much broken, yet one may perceive it to 
have been of most excellent workmanship. This 
crossed-legged attitude, it may be observed, does not 
necessarily denote the crusader; and possibly in this 
case, as in many others, may indicate the founder 
and great benefactor of churches or chapels, or as an 
expressive token that the person commemorated, 
having lived a true son of the church, died professing 
the Christian faith.’ 


Like heavenly salvation, earthly fame, too, was 
obtained at a price. In de Hungerford’s case in order 
to fund his endowment it was necessary for him to 
bypass the law of mortmain. As far back as Edward 
I (1272-1307) the Crown had realised that where 
land was granted by individual lay owners to 
ecclesiastical corporate bodies it remained free of 
manorial services, or payments in lieu of services 
due to the Crown. To prevent this loss of income, 
the Crown had promoted legislation involving 
penalties for causing land to come under mortmain 
(literally the ‘dead hand’, which held tight for ever 
what it had thus acquired). The king was prepared, 
however, to waive the general law in a specific 
instance and, for a fee or fine, grant a licence (i.e. 
permission) to an applicant to alienate (or transfer) 
property into mortmain. In 1325 Robert de 
Hungerford obtained a licence for alienation in 
mortmain of 2 messuages, 3 acres of land, 5 acres of 
meadow and 70 shillings of rents in Hungerford, 
Sandon and Charlton for his new chantry of the Holy 
Trinity.’ In 1331 he applied to increase the chantry’s 
original endowment, and a licence was granted to 
him in respect of an additional endowment of 1 
messuage, a mill, 9 acres of arable land, 6 acres of 
meadow, 10 shillings in rents, plus the price of 5 
quarters of wheat from lands or properties in 
Hungerford, Balston, Sandon and Charlton. This 
income was to be used for the maintenance of John 
de Pewelle as minister of the chantry.’ The licence 
for this cost him a fine of £5 to the king. A third 
licence granted in 1336 permitted him the right to 
alienate a further 4 houses, 10 acres of arable land, 
4 acres of meadow and 10 shillings of rent in 
Hungerford, Sandon and Charlton.° 

Even though such licences cost money, the 
advantages of land alienation in this way were great. 


THE CHANTRY OF THE HOLY TRINITY AT HUNGERFORD il 


By passing his property into mortmain on such a 
large scale as his various chantries required, or could 
be made to appear to require, the lands thus granted 
became untaxable, liable for no services and 
inalienable. It seems clear from a later inquisition 
that the Holy Trinity chantry did not in fact acquire 
all, or even many, of the properties to which the 
second and third licences applied. There would 
seem to be something of a book-keeping transaction 
here which no doubt left the incidence of taxation 
satisfactorily vague. Certainly the value of the 
original benefaction was generously adequate, at 
the time at which it was made, for the support of a 
single full-time chaplain. 

In presenting John de Pewelle to the chaplaincy 
of the chantry, Sir Robert de Hungerford was 
providing an income for an existing member of his 
household. John de Pewelle was a trusted household 
clerk who was also appointed chaplain of the de 
Hungerford-founded hospital at Calne. 
Furthermore he had probably received legal training 
as his name occurs as a party in several feet of fine 
where he was clearly acting on behalf of his lord.’ 

The process involved in the appointment of a 
clerk to an ecclesiastical benefice normally passed 
through four stages — presentation, admission, 
institution, and induction. Presentation involved the 
patron of the benefice presenting to the bishop the 
name of his nominee. The bishop then had to satisfy 
himself that the nominee was suitable, i.e. was 
ordained, was of age, free-born, and of good life 
and conversation. ‘Conversation’ in this context 
meant more than good clean speech; it implied 
honest and trustworthy conduct. The bishop also 
required to know the nature of the foundation, the 
value of its income and the nature of the chaplain’s 
proposed duties. Admission occurred upon his 
approval of these circumstances. Institution could 
then occur: i.e. the bishop would commit the 
benefice to the cleric who had thus been presented 
and admitted. The final stage was the induction or 
ceremonial introduction of the new incumbent into 
his benefice. 

In 1337 de Pewelle died and Sir Robert de 
Hungerford presented to the ecclesiastical authority 
his nomination as replacement to the Holy Trinity 
chaplaincy, Henry de Bradenham.® Although 
nothing is known of de Bradenham’s antecedents, 
the likelihood is that, like de Pewelle, he was in Sir 
Robert’s employ. The vicar of Hungerford was sent 
a mandate requiring him to report on both the priest 
and the chantry, and on whether the right of 
presentation did indeed belong to Sir Robert de 


Hungerford as had been alleged. He was asked for 
details of the previous presentation, the age of the 
priest, his manner of life and conversation, the value 
of the foundation, whether a curate was employed 
or not, and what the chaplain’s duties were.” Within 
a matter of days the vicar had replied, stating that 
the vacancy arose from the death of Sir John de 
Pewelle, the previous chaplain, which had occurred 
on the eve of All Hallows. He confirmed that Sir 
Robert de Hungerford was patron of the chantry, 
and as such had previously presented de Pewelle. 
Sir Henry de Bradenham, he reported, was aged 
40, a man of good life and honest conversation, 
who held the rank of ordained priest. The chantry’s 
foundation consisted of 2 messuages, 3% acres of 
land, one piece of meadow, 66s. 8d. annual rents, 
with certain other unspecified appurtenances in 
Hungerford, Sandon and Charlton, which all 
together were worth, according to common 
estimate, 100s. per annum. The chaplain’s duties 
were to celebrate mass daily in the church for the 
wellbeing of Sir Robert and his wife Geva during 
their lifetime, and for their souls after death, and 
for the souls of all the faithful departed. The 
chaplain was required to be present in the parish 
church at morning and evening service to assist the 
vicar, along with other chaplains, once on Sundays 
and feast days and twice at requiems for the dead. 
He should maintain a curate to celebrate mass daily 
before sunrise at the altar of Holy Trinity in St 
Lawrence’s church, the Lord’s day and feast days 
excepted. The chantry had been ordained by the 
Bishop and there was nothing prejudicial in the 
appointment, ‘if the said ordination of the chantry 
is observed in all respects’.!” 

Until the Reformation the parish church of 
Hungerford was fortunate to possess a number of 
clergy carrying out their duties within it. There was 
the vicar; two chaplains, one each for the chantries 
of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
both of which were located in the parish church; 
and there was also the prior, warden or chaplain of 
the priory or free chapel of St John. In addition 
there were chapels, and their concomitant chaplains, 
in outlying areas of the parish, such as North and 
South Standen (Standen Hussey). 

The parish itself was part of the diocese of 
Salisbury but formed a peculiar, exempt from 
episcopal jurisdiction, and subject instead to that 
of the prior of Ogbourne. The Crown or its Duchy 
of Lancaster presented in respect of the priory of 
St John, while the chaplaincy of the chantry of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary seems to have been in the 


72 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


hands of the burgesses whose foundation it was; 
and that of the Holy Trinity chantry was in the gift 
of the bishop. For records of these appointments, 
therefore, different sources have to be examined: 
for the vicars in the manuscript collection of the 
Deans and Canons of Windsor; for the priory of St 
John in the royal Patent Rolls; for the chaplaincy of 
the chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the town 
muniments; and for that of the Holy Trinity chantry 
in the registers of the bishops of Salisbury. 

One result of this curiously scattered and 
divided source of clerical supply was that the bishop 
had, as far as appointments were concerned, the 
merest toe-hold within the parish, and this by virtue 
of his gift of the chaplaincy of the Holy Trinity 
chantry. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the 
event of disputes occurring in Hungerford, the 
bishop may have had occasion to rely on the loyalty 
of the chaplain of the Holy Trinity chantry. This is 
noticeably apparent in a dispute in 1408 involving 
vicar Robert Napper and chaplain William Brown.!! 

In 1399 Brown had become chaplain of the 
Holy Trinity chantry, continuing in this office until 
1411.'° During most of this time he was 
contemporaneous with Robert Napper, who was 
presented to the vicarage in 1403,'*? and was 
referred to in a document of 1420 as ‘perpetual 
vicar of Hungerford’.'? In 1408 a dispute arose in 
which the defendants were William Soper of 
Hungerford and Alice Sawser of the tithing of 
Hidden. The defendants were summoned by 
William Brown to appear before the bishop’s 
commissary; two days later they were similarly 
summoned by Brown to appear before the bishop 
himself. When, after a third summons, Alice Sawser 
did not appear, the bishop’s commissary decreed 
that she should be excommunicated for her 
contumacy. However, it would seem that the vicar 
of Hungerford neglected (or refused) to make the 
customary declaration of her excommunication, 
and so the bishop’s commissary ordered the vicar 
himself to be summoned for contempt and 
disobedience. At a special court to deal with the 
matter, certificates were received from William 
Brown detailing the failure of Napper, whom he 
termed ‘the alleged vicar of Hungerford’, to make 
the summons of William Roper and Alice Sawser 
in the case mentioned above. Since Napper did not 
appear in court, he too was excommunicated. The 
vicar appealed to the Archbishop’s Court of 
Audience where the case proceeded to several legal 
actions. Napper appealed even further to the 
Apostolic See. In the end Napper made his formal 


submission to the bishop and was absolved from 
excommunication after he had sworn to obey the 
laws of the church.” 

There are two other minor elements to be noted 
here regarding the history of the Holy Trinity 
chantry. Firstly there was apparently an attempt to 
provide an addition to the original endowment. In 
1350 Peter Farman granted | virgate of land called 
Ponzardesland to Robert de Hungerford on 
condition that Robert should in his own lifetime 
and at his own expense appropriate it to the chantry 
of the Holy Trinity. Robert de Hungerford died in 
1354 without having fulfilled this condition and 
after various legal processes the estate was restored 
to Peter Farman by the Crown, who had taken it 
on de Hungerford’s death. 

Secondly, John Aubrey, in his Wiltshire 
Collections, described the Sir Robert Hungerford 
foundation at Calne in all its magnificence: 


In 1336 Sir Robert de Hungerford gave to John de 
Pewelle, the custos of the hospital, 40 acres at Stock, 
Quemerford, Calstone, etc. for maintenance of a daily 
mass for his soul at the altar of St Edmund in the 
church of Calne, the mass to be said by the second 
presbyter in rank. Also a set of robes and green 
hanging powdered with small white crosses. . . In 
1442, however, the altar had become so neglected 
that Walter, Lord Hungerford, obtained leave to 
transfer its endowment to a chantry founded by him 
at Heytesbury.!’ 


Heytesbury was the family seat, and this act was a 
melancholy but realistic admission that a chantry 
devoted to the Hungerfords was not necessarily 
assured of survival into perpetuity once the presence 
of its founder was removed from the area. 


II 


The records of Sir Robert de Hungerford’s 
endowment, based on the rent from lands and 
properties which he had alienated to the chantry, 
provide glimpses of persons and places during a 
particularly sparse and misty period. Names of 
tenants and of properties occur and sometimes 
recur throughout the centuries. In some cases these 
can be assigned to sites inhabited today. 
Unfortunately, the references to chantry properties 
are not only scattered in time but also differ from 
one another in purpose, and so are not always easily 
comparable. For instance, the vicar of Hungerford’s 
report to his bishop in 1337 in connection with the 
appointment of Henry de Bradenham as chaplain 


THE CHANTRY OF THE HOLY TRINITY AT HUNGERFORD 73 


corresponds, more or less, though not exactly, with 
the details of the original grant of 1325. This raises 
the question of what happened to the additional 
grants licensed in 1331 and 1336. 

In the Register of Bishop Beaumont of Salisbury 
a later scribe has entered an undated grant made 
by Robert de Hungerford to John de Pewelle, the 
first chaplain of the Holy Trinity chantry. This grant 
consisted of 66s. 8d. in rents plus 5 quarters of 
wheat. The total of rents corresponds with that in 
the vicar’s report of 1337, and the 5 quarters of 
wheat were mentioned in the 1331 grant, but the 
document’s special interest is the detailed 
breakdown it gives of the names of tenants with 
details of their holdings: 


from Robert Hopgrass for 1 virgate in Charlton, one- 
sixth of the manor of Charlton, / virgate and 6 acres 
in Charlton: 5 quarters of wheat and 40s.; from 
Richard le Fode for certain unspecified holdings in 
Hungerford, 10s.; from John Gifford for 1 messuage 
and curtilage in Hungerford, 5s.; from Walter 
Grimmesden [rectius Brimmesden], 6s.8d; from John 
and Margaret Grimmesden [Brimmesden] for 1 
messuage in Hungerford and 1 acre of land, 4s.; from 
William le Taylour for 1 messuage in Hungerford, 12d. 
Total: 66s.8d. 


Another account appeared in 1331 in Chancery 
Inquisitiones ad quod damnum, which stated that 
the properties licensed to the chantry in that year 
were all held of John Maltravers the elder by service 
of one half of a knight’s fee, except for 8 acres of 
land which were held of Henry, Duke of Lancaster, 
by service of 3d. per annum. The premises were 
said to be worth 5s. 7d. besides the rents; the wheat 
(in an average year with wheat at 4 shillings a 
quarter) was worth £1. Since John Maltravers held 
the manor of Charlton, and the Duke of Lancaster 
that of Hungerford and Sandon Fee, this 
determines the amount of chantry land at that time 
in the manor of Hungerford as 8 acres, all the rest 
lying in Charlton.!° 

The religious upheavals in the reign of Henry 
VIII not only led to the final dissolution of the 
monasteries but also affected the chantries, 
dissolution of which followed in the reign of his 
successor, Edward VI. The Act for their dissolution 
was passed at the end of 1547 and commissioners 
were appointed by the Crown to survey their 
possessions. Early in 1548 the commissioners had 
completed their survey of the two Hungerford 
chantries, of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin 
Mary, and issued a certificate of their findings. The 


commissioners stated the objects of the Holy Trinity 
foundation, ‘as reported to them’ (thus making it 
clear that they had not seen the foundation deed 
itself). They did not assert that the reported object 
of the foundation, viz. celebration of divine service, 
was still being observed (as by comparison, they 
reported it was being observed in the neighbouring 
chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary), nor did they 
report the existence of a chantry priest to perform 
this duty. Ornaments, plate, jewels, goods and 
chattels belonging to the chantry were said to 
appear in another, presumably separate, inventory 
and were not appraised. The value of the lands 
and tenements belonging to the chantry (in 
addition to 5 quarters of wheat) was £10 3s. Od. 
After deduction of what was described as the king’s 
‘tenth’, viz. 16 shillings, there remained £9 7s. 0d., 
‘which was employed as well towards the fynding 
[maintenance] of the chantry priest there as also 
towards the repairing of the houses to the said 
chantry belonging.”° 

Upon the return of the Commissioners’ 
certificate, the next step for the Crown was to 
consider petitions from prospective purchasers or 
lessees. These often were middlemen, and the first 
to get in a bid for the Holy Trinity chantry was Roger 
Chaloner, an official of the Duchy of Lancaster, 
resident in London, and himself a commissioner 
to enquire into chantries in Hertfordshire and 
Essex. The customary procedure on receipt of a 
petition from a prospective purchaser was for the 
Pipe Office to draft a ‘particular’ or detailed account 
of the properties, which were then rated at a 
purchase price equivalent to so many years’ rental. 
Following this, a draft lease was prepared for the 
Lord Chancellor’s approval. In the case of the Holy 
Trinity chantry this was a 21-year lease granted by 
the Duchy of Lancaster to Roger Chaloner, to 
commence at Easter 1548.7! 

The draft lease on which the sale to Chaloner 
was based contains two main sections, rent from 
individual tenements let on a tenant-at-will basis, 
and rents from small blocks of property leased by 
indenture. There were fourteen individual items in 
the first category (of which twelve appear to be 
houses with or without accompanying lands, one a 
parcel of meadow and one the rent in cash and 
wheat from Hopgrass); these fourteen rents totalled 
£8 19s.8d. In the second category were two blocks 
or groups of property whose rents amounted to £3 
17s.4d., the two sets of rent thus amounting to a 
grand total of £12 17s.0d. However, this includes 
5 quarters of wheat at 6s. 8d. per quarter (total £1 


74 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


13s.4d.) and so, to compare this figure with that of 
the Commissioners’ certificate, £1 13s.4d. should 
be deducted, providing a figure of £10 3s.8d. It 
would seem, therefore, that the two figures do not 
differ to any significant amount. The Victoria 
County History of Berkshire has stated that there 
exist three different valuations of the chantry’s 
endowments, viz. £10 3s.0d., £12 7s.0d., and £8, 
a puzzle which it leaves unexplained.”! In quoting 
the figure £12 7s. Od., however, the V.C.H. is guilty 
of a slip. Its reference is to the draft lease quoted 
above, and in fact the total in that document is £12 
17s.0d. Thus the first two of the ‘differences’ may 
be reconciled, as has been shown. The third 
valuation of £8 is given in the Valor Ecclesiasticus 
of 1535 as net income and it must be on this net 
valuation that the one-tenth tax was fixed at 16s.” 
When the lands were let to Chaloner it was, as might 
be expected, the higher or gross figure of £12 
17s.0d. that was used in the rental calculations. 

In the category of tenants-at-will contained in 
the draft lease the annual rent from the manor of 
Charlton, or (as it was by this time called) Hopgrass, 
viz. 40s. plus the value of 5 quarters of wheat priced 
at 3s. 8d. per quarter. The 1548 particular has a 
section difficult to transcribe which seems to refer 
to the rent from one virgate of land in Charlton, 
‘once belonging to Alexander de Marishe, and 
afterwards to Hopgrass’, a one-sixth part of the 
manor of Charlton, and another 2 virgate of land 
in the same manor.*! The reference to one-sixth 
part of the manor is interesting because it is known 
that Robert Hopgrass died in 1349 holding five- 
sixths of the manor as tenant of the heir of John 
Maltravers. His inquisition post mortem in that 
same year shows him also holding what is 
presumably the remaining one-sixth, viz. 1 
messuage, 80 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 7/2 
acres of pasture, 33 acres of wood and 7s. rent, ‘held 
of Sir Robert de Hungerford by service of 40s. and 
5 quarters of wheat per annum.’ 

The above mentioned references to the 
tenancies of Charlton, alias Hopgrass, are 
particularly useful because neither the rental of 
Hungerford which took place c.1470, nor the town 
surveys of 1552 and 1573 include either the vill of 
Charnham Street or the lands that were within the 
manor of Hopgrass; and it was in this area that a 
substantial portion of the chantry’s holding lay. In 
the town rental of c.1470 the Holy Trinity holdings 
in Hungerford and Sandon Fee amounted to eight 
burgage holdings in the town and ‘certain lands’ in 
Sandon Fee. The town survey of 1552 attributed 


to the chantry eleven tenements in town and ‘a piece 
of meadow’ in Sandon Fee. The extra tenements, 
as compared with c.1470, arose from each of two 
burgages having been divided into two tenements, 
and an extra tenement (that occupied in 1552 by 
‘Thomas Hedache) that had in 1470 been attributed 
to John Warnewell, the ownership of which may 
have been in dispute. Thus the town survey of 1552 
compares closely with the draft lease of 1548 with 
its twelve houses. One of those twelve, that occupied 
by William Beech, cannot be identified in the 1552 
survey and may have been in neighbouring 
Charnham Street. 

The 1548 draft lease contained two indenture 
leases of small blocks of property. William Lovelake’s 
indenture was of the tenement adjoining that of 
M. Longford in the 1552 survey in which he and 
Longford were jointly quitrented at 12d. In the 1573 
survey Lovelake’s was clearly the tenement then 
occupied by Nicholas Marshall, quitrent 8d.; and 
Longford’s tenement had become that of Thomas 
Grant, quitrent 4d.*’ Marshall’s tenement was 
accompanied by 15% acres just as Lovelake’s had 
been. Both tenements were wrongly attributed as 
having once belonged to the Blessed Virgin Mary 
chantry. The second indenture lease gave Robert 
Brabant one messuage let as two tenements on the 
east side of the [High] street. The text at this point 
is corrupt but a clear text occurs in the 
contemporaneous Minister’s Account for 2-3 
Edward VI,** that is, that the messuage was one 
formerly inhabited by Thomas Bosgrove, and was 
situated between a tenement of the chantry of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary on the south and another 
tenement of the Holy Trinity chantry on the north. 
This corresponds with the position, revealed by the 
order in which the town surveys list the houses, of 
Culver House, a tenement that appears in the 
rentals of 1470, 1552 and 1573; and although it 
appears in the draft lease of 1548 this house is not 
included in the Minister’s Account of 2-3 Edward 
VI. The lands leased to Brabant are given in clearer 
detail in this Account, however, which derived 
Brabant’s holding from an indenture made in 1516 
by the Bishop of Salisbury, whom it described as 
the patron of the chantry. The rent income from 
these lands is stated to be £3 4s.0d., broken down 
as follows: the house, divided into two tenements, 
24s.8d.; 5 acres in Chantry Field, 20s.; and in 
Charnham Street 6 acres of meadow with 1 acre 
arable and 2 pieces of meadow estimated to contain 
3 acres, 13s. 4d. These three items total only £2 
18s.0d., however. 


THE CHANTRY OF THE HOLY TRINITY AT HUNGERFORD 75 


Some late lawsuits provide further evidence of 
the way in which problems arose from the chantry 
estates. In or about the year 1545 Thomas Langsloo, 
a newly appointed chaplain of the chantry, who 
described himself as ‘a very poor man’, tried to 
obtain payment of 40s. plus the price of 5 quarters 
of wheat at 6s. 8d. a quarter from Ralph Hanley, 
‘out of a farm called Hopgrass’.*? The major portion 
of Langsloo’s stipend was at stake in the dispute, 
whereas ‘the said Raffe is a very rich man and hath 
many friends and adherents in the said countrie.’ 
Langsloo, in contrast, was ‘a stranger in the 
country’, that is, in the district. It would seem that 
he was a new broom, for Hanley answers that 
Langsloo had refused to accept from him an annual 
rent of £3 5s.0d. when this had been offered. It 
seems likely that Langsloo was insisting on 40s. plus 
5 quarters of wheat at current prices. By 1545 wheat 
was worth a great deal more than 6s. 8d. a quarter 
and, indeed, a later tenant had to pay the amount 
in kind, as the original endowment provided for. 
Behind the suit may be sensed the growing 
resentment at old feudal and ecclesiastical patterns 
which had already been broken by Henry VIII’s 
dissolution of the monasteries, and of which the 
chantries were the last relic, themselves about to 
be dissolved. 

In a later suit in 1581 William Curteys, then 
the lessee of the dissolved chantry lands, sued Brian 
Gunter, his tenant in Hopgrass, alleging assault and 
claiming that Gunter had given false measure of 
wheat. He alleged that Gunter and his wife: 


very arrogantly and reproachfully uttered that the 
Queen’s majesty should find them a chapel to say 
mass or service twice every week in the said manor 
or farm of Hopgrass, or else they would not pay the 
said rent of money and wheat. 


If the chantry was dissolved and thus no longer 
performed the function for which the rent had 
formerly been applied, any demand for rent in its 
name might seem a one-sided arrangement some 
35 years after dissolution. The argument is a false 
one, but to those who were aware of the past history 
and services of the chantry, it lay at the back of the 
mind and could rise to the surface in moments of 
anger. In his answer Brian Gunter denied that when 
Curteys sent to collect the rent Anne Gunter, “divers 
times falsely and corruptly brought forth a false 
bushel not allowable for the measuring of the said 
wheat and with the same did measure out wheat 
which in every twenty bushels wanted one bushel’. 
But he admitted that on one occasion one of his 


servants had measured some 17 bushels, ‘by a 
bushel measure which the clerk of the market had 
pared too little almost by the quantity of one pint’, 
and upon discovering this he had offered to pay for 
the 17 pints thus deficient. The court found Gunter 
guilty not only of short measure but also of 
delivering ‘foul, musty, and uncleaned wheat.’ It 
ordered that the rent should be paid in ‘good clean, 
sweet, and merchantable wheat and in no other 
grain, as it may also appear evidently by an ancient 
deed showed in this court whereby the same is 
termed quinque, quarten’ frumentr.*® 

Clearly all was not plain sailing for the 
purchasers of the former chantry lands. In another 
suit in 1569 Henry Edes, Curteys’ predecessor as 
farmer of the Holy Trinity chantry rents, claimed 
that the defendants had pulled down a house in 
Charnham Street, part of the possessions of the 
former chantry, and carried away its timber and 
thatch. They had also taken possession of a meadow 
which went with the house. The defendants claimed 
that the building in question was part of the Bell 
Inn and with the meadow adjacent belonged to the 
Chock family. They had held it in fee simple as far 
back as the reign of Edward IV (1461-83), paying 
what they described as an annual quitrent of 4s. to 
the Holy Trinity chantry for this property.*! 

When the dissolution of the chantry took place 
in 1548 Langsloo had received a generous pension 
of £6 13s.4d. What happened to him thereafter is 
not known; he may have left the district to which 
he had come only a few years earlier as a stranger. 
If so, who would remain locally to recall reliably 
the exact extent of the former chantry’s possessions? 
It may be for this reason that successive town 
surveys in 1552, 1573 and 1591 seem gradually to 
decrease the number of properties that had once 
belonged to the Holy Trinity, and generally to 
attribute them to the former chantry of the Blessed 
Virgin Mary instead. When one agent acquired 
leases from both of the former chantry lands the 
tendency to confusion became pronounced. 
Another cause of difficulty in comparing survey 
details was a tendency to subdivide individual 
holdings. When the larger blocks became broken 
up by sub-letting, the problem of identifying these 
parts becomes in several cases insuperable. Yet 
another difficulty is posed by the decay of buildings, 
and some tenements may have been omitted from 
surveys or rentals because they had become 
uninhabitable and no rent could be expected from 
them, unless they were rebuilt. Having become the 
property of the Crown after the dissolution of the 


76 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


chantry, their restoration depended upon the 
Crown’s willingness to undertake this, whereas 
previously the responsibility had been the chantry’s 
and repairs were paid for out of the foundation rents. 
A report prepared for the Duchy of Lancaster, fifty 
years after the dissolution of the chantries, shows 
that nearly all the properties of both the chantries 
in Hungerford needed extensive repair or 
rebuilding, to the joint extent of 100 tons of 
timber.*’? Doubtless this was thought to be 
exaggerated, as the Crown sanctioned the use of 
only 40 tons. 

The uncertainty and confusion that arose once 
the link between priest and chantry had been 
snapped was highlighted by the difficulties of the 
jurors who presented the 1573 survey to the 
commissioners. Apparently they had been asked to 
give particular attention to sums for obits arising 
from the property of dissolved institutions. On the 
oaths of various elderly townsmen sums were stated 
to be due on lands and premises going back in time 
to well before the dissolution. Memories were 
inevitably vague. Thus, ‘George Toggye upon his 
oath affirmeth that there was an obit [on a particular 
house] and knoweth not what.’ On another property 
a deponent declared that there had been two obits 
consisting of ‘4 bushels of wheat yearly to be paid 
to the poor, and in money he knoweth not the sum.’ 
The jurors also reported that ‘the chantry priest of 
the Trinity ought of right to have a common way 
through a plot of ground of George Essex esq 
between the sun rising and sunset’.*> Essex was 
lord of Hopgrass manor. With no chantry priest 
left to claim his right to use the footpath it is 
doubtful if the lord of the manor hesitated to enclose 
what must have been a convenient right of way for 
others besides the priest. Although the loss to the 
community may have been small, it was typical of 
what happened when the affairs of the community 
and the life of the chantry became divorced. 

The history of the lands which had once 
provided the income for the chantry continued long 
after the chantry itself had disappeared. Sold off in 
blocks to speculative landlords they passed from 
owner to owner, tenant to tenant. In the course of 


this disposal by sale the lands of the Holy Trinity 
and of the Blessed Virgin Mary became cast together 
or dispersed indiscriminately, so that it is difficult 
to follow their history under privatisation, or to 
pursue some of the later references to what became 
known simply and indistinguishably as ‘the chantry 
lands.’ This was a far cry indeed from Sir Robert 
de Hungerford’s original intentions. 


Notes 


' Hastings MSS, no. 1176; Berks RO H/RTa 32. 

* MS Ashmole 1125; Cal. Pat. Rolls 1324-7, p. 191. 

W. Money, Historical sketch of the town of 
Hungerford. . . (1894). 

1 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 20 Nov. 1325. 

> Cal. Pat. Rolls, 15 Oct. 1331. 

© Cal. Pat. Rolls, 3 Jul. 1336. 

’ Hastings MSS., Huntington Library, California. 

8 MS Ashmole 1125. 

° Tbid. 

10 Tbid. 

'! Joyce Horn (ed.), Register of Bishop Hallum, 1407- 

17 (Canterbury & York Soc.). 

2 Sir Thomas Phillipps, Wiltshire institutions. . . 

© Tbid. 

'S Berks RO H/RTa 16. 

'S Horn, op.cit. 

'© For Farman family see VCH Berks, vol. 4, p. 190. 

'7 John Aubrey (ed. J.E. Jackson), Wiltshire collections 
ws (1862): 

8 WSRO D1/2/11. vol. 1, pt. 2, ff. 60-1. 

° Chancery Ing ad quod damnum, 177 (17). 

20 PRO E301/51. 

21 PRO DL14/6/43. 

2 VCH Berks, vol. 4, p. 198. 

> Valor Ecclesiasticus (Record Commissioners), vol. 2, 
p. 158. 

4 PRO E36/258, f. 148v. 

* PRO DL43/1/4. 

°° PRO DL42/108. 

°7 Berks RO HM35/1. 

8 PRO DL29/723/11779. 

29 PRO C1/1139/29. 

30 PRO DL1/116/C3; DL5/17. 

31 PRO DL1/79/E2. 

* PRO DL42/98 ff. 329-30. 

* Berks RO HM5/1. 


is) 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 77-88 


Malmesbury Abbey and Late Saxon Parochial 


Development in Wiltshire 


by Jonathan Pitt 


A network of late Saxon hundred minsters 1s apparent in the evidence for ecclesiastical organisation in 
Wiltshire. In the north-west, however, the pattern seems more complex, perhaps because of the survival of 
much evidence produced by the major abbey at Malmesbury. Nonetheless, as elsewhere in Wiltshire and 
Wessex, the influence of such religious institutions on the development of the parochial system in the later 
Anglo-Saxon period may have been significant, because of their control of extensive lands and of the 
churches standing thereon. Churches held and arguably founded by the abbeys of Malmesbury and 
Glastonbury in particular are discussed here as examples of the results of this influence. 


A religious establishment existed at Malmesbury 
by 681, the date of the earliest extant charter (S71/ 
73) agreed to be genuine, by which King /“&thelred 
granted fifteen hides, juxta Tettan monasterium 
[‘near Tetbury’] to abbot Aldhelm, while other royal 
diplomas exist which reveal something of the 
development of the house’s landholdings.' 
However, little is revealed by the available sources 
of this community’s activities, in the field of pastoral 
care, during the first two centuries or more of its 
existence. By the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, 
though, there were churches on at least some of 
the abbey’s estates, which extended over much of 
north-west Wiltshire, and these churches appear 
varied in status and origins. In spite of these 
variations it can be suggested that Malmesbury 
Abbey stands as an example of a late Saxon religious 
institution able to influence the development of the 
later parish system through control of the churches 
on its lands. 

In Wiltshire as a whole a network of pastorai 
care is obscure as far as the first two centuries after 
conversion are concerned. Only one other 
community, that at Tisbury, is documented as early 
as Malmesbury (S1164/1256),” while there is no 
secure documentation for the suggestion that 


Aldhelm founded a church at Bradford-on-Avon. 
Nevertheless there is a background to 
Malrnesbury’s late Saxon activities, and that is a 
system, for such it can be called, of hundred 
minsters. Churches such as those at Britford, 
Downton, Broad Chalke, Damerham, and Tisbury 
itself, show up in the later documents as the 
dominant ones in their respective hundreds, and 
although in general the network seems most 
coherent in the southern half of Wiltshire, perhaps 
because of variations in the survival of evidence, 
churches in the north do fall into the same pattern, 
as at, for example, Melksham, Calne, Chippenham, 
Bishops Cannings and All Cannings.’ Both the 
extent of this pattern, and its conformity with the 
boundaries of the hundreds at around the time of 
Domesday Book, are striking, and these are the 
factors which allow some confidence in the belief 
that our sources do reflect a true system and perhaps 
the result of a definite policy. 

It is unclear when this hundred-minster system 
originated: although it may be associated with tenth- 
century administrative reorganisation, there is 
evidence to show that some of the minsters were 
already in existence. Furthermore, the hundredal 
layout of c.1086 seems to reveal an administrative 


42 Finedon Road, Burton Latimer, Kettering NN15 5QB 


78 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig.1 North-west Wiltshire, c.1086 


showing some ecclesiastical links to Malmesbury 


KEY 

Crudwell Place named in Domesday Book (modern form) 
STARTLEY Domesday hundred name 

mao Holding of Malmesbury Abbey (number of hides) 


G20 Holding of Glastonbury Abbey (number of hides) 


N 


Easton 


Sopworth 


Sherston Eoxlay, 


DUNLEY 


Norton 


Luckington uM 


4 
Alderton \ Bradfield 
\ 


surrendei Hoey nate 


fc v Grittleton 
é 630 


Sevington 


Nettleton 


THORNGROVE = Easton 
G20 . Kington 


Yatton 


pattern still, or recently, in flux, with some hundreds 
having been combined, others newly created; yet 
the pastoral layout still conforms to it well, 
suggesting that the latter evolved along with the 
former.’ It may be suspected that the influence of 
powerful landlords, including prominent religious 
houses at Shaftesbury, Wilton, Winchester and 
Glastonbury, all major Wiltshire landholders, was 
a prime factor in these developments. Evolution in 
the network of minsters was not the only change in 
late Saxon pastoral provision: this was a time when 
lesser churches and chapels were being constructed 
and perhaps acquiring some of the functions to go 
along with their later status as ordinary parish 
churches. It is possible that some churches, showing 
signs of status approaching that of minsters in the 
later sources, were among these late Saxon 
foundations. These too are usually found in the 
hands of major religious establishments. 


[Long] Newnton 
M30 


Brokenbotgugh 


Stanton 
Litveton 
. G 


Langley 
G29 


Kemble 


M30 


Shamcote 


Poole [Keynes] \\Somertord [Keynes] 


Ashley 


Chelyforth Ashton [Keynes] 
M Oaksey 

Chedgelow 
Crudwel 


™40, 


CICEMENTQWE (Chedglow) 


Chariton 


m20 


Garsdon 


uM 


Malmesbury 
r=, 


\ 


eo 


Brinkworth 
Corston Somerford . 


u u a 


Somerford 


Dauntsey Smithcot » 


STARTLEY M 


Christian Malford 


G20 


Draycot 


Malmesbury’s immediate vicinity, however, offers 
some contrast with the general Wiltshire pattern, in 
that it does not show a neat network of hundred 
minsters. It is perhaps too easy to ascribe this to the 
status of the major house at Malmesbury itself, 
especially when later sources could be read as 
suggesting something approaching hundred-minster 
status for the two main parish churches in the town, 
Ss Peter and Paul, and St Mary Westport. The 
‘Inquisitions of the Ninth’ of 1341 records the former 
‘cum duabus capellis Rodbourn et Corston in hundr’ 
de Sterkelee’ [‘with two chapels at Rodbourne and 
Corston in Startley hundred’] and the latter “cum 
duabus capellis de Brokenbergh et Ch’Iton in hundr’ 
de Cheggelegh’[‘with the two chapels of 
Brokenborough and Charlton in Chedglow 
hundred’].’ In this source the two churches appear 
with equal status and it may be noteworthy that 
trouble was taken to note that the chapels of Ss Peter 


MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 19 


and Paul were in Startley hundred and those of St 
Mary in Cicementone hundred (by this date called 
Chedglow). Malmesbury itself stood in the centre 
of these two hundreds (Fig.1), and it is tempting to 
wonder whether this evidence shows that it had 
been intended at some stage that the Malmesbury 
area should conform to the hundred-minster 
pattern, perhaps leaving the reformed abbey 
separate from the pastoral care network, but this 
cannot be proven. Further, the Wiltshire Geld Roll, 
which gives a hidage for Cicementone of 16912 and 
for Startley of 152%4,° may suggest hundredal 
consolidation, since the total of 321° approximates 
to that expected for three hundreds: but 
adjustments to the administrative pattern prior to 
the late eleventh century do not rule out the 
presence or foundation of hundred minsters. 
How can this be reconciled with the status of 
the abbey itself which was surely the superior church 
of the area from the time of its foundation? Such a 
view may be supported by other medieval evidence. 
The indications are conveniently summarised by a 
1265 document in which Bishop Walter confirmed 
the various tithes and pensions owed to the abbey. 
The churches of St Paul and St Mary in 
Malmesbury, and those of Minety, Brinkworth, 
Garsdon, Long Newnton, Purton, Beckhampton 
(near Avebury) and Compton, all owed pensions 
to the abbey, and demesne tithes were held in 
Colerne, Yatton (in Thorngrove hundred), Long 
Newnton, Purton and Broughton. Portions held 
by the abbey, listed in a separate document, were 
in the churches of St Paul and St Mary in 
Malmesbury, Crudwell, Kemble, and Purton, and 
additionally, held by the abbey’s officers, in Colerne, 
Yatton, Brinkworth, Lyneham (in Kingsbridge 
hundred), Brokenborough, Long Newnton, 
Charlton, Garsdon and Norton.’ These lists may 
be compared with the 1291 Taxatio which notes 
pensions due to Malmesbury Abbey from St Mary 
Westport, St Paul, Norton, Garsdon, Kemble, 
Crudwell and Brinkworth, and lists portions held 
by the abbey in Long Newnton, Yatton Keynell, 
Colerne (in Chippenham hundred) and Lyneham.* 
The designations of the churches at Corston, 
Norton, Sutton Benger and Smithcot as chapels at 
various dates might also suggest the inclusion of 
these places within a parochia centred on 
-Malmesbury.’ Further, the abbey held rights in 
Swindon, with a payment in wax, ‘nomine 
minutarum decimarum [‘in respect of the lesser 
tithes’], owed in spite of the gift of Swindon church 
with lands and tithes to the canons of Portchester 


in the 1140s.'° Given the abbey’s rights in Swindon, 
some fourteen miles to the east but only about six 
miles south of Cricklade, it is tempting to assign a 
huge parochia to its Saxon predecessor and to include 
Purton, Minety and parts, at least, of Thorngrove 
and Chippenham hundreds in addition to its more 
immediate area. The question of whether a 
reconstructed parochia should include the further- 
flung places such as Purton and Swindon is a 
problematic one, as rights deriving from secular 
lordship cannot in these late sources be distinguished 
from those associated with pastoral functions, if 
indeed such a distinction can be made: the origins 
of Maimesbury Abbey’s rights, in terms of dating 
and purpose, are not revealed by the sources. It is 
fair, though, to think that some, at least, must derive 
from the abbey’s early status: that it was a minster 
serving a large parochia even if its area of respons- 
ibility did not extend as far as Swindon, for example. 

However, Malmesbury Abbey was not the only 
church within north-west Wiltshire showing signs 
of status above the ordinary. First, the area did have 
its own hundred minsters, one of the clearer 
examples being at Chippenham, where the church 
held a hide of land in 1086 and was valued at 55s. 
at that date, and at £26 13s.4d. in 1291."! For 
Wiltshire these were significant amounts, and the 
suggestion of high status seems confirmed by the 
two-membrane cartulary of Monkton Farleigh 
priory, to which Chippenham’s church was granted, 
which preserves two suggestive documents dating 
from the twelfth century. The first simply records 
the grant to the priory of ‘ecclesiam de Chippeam 
cum capellis et decimis et omnibus aliis (. . .) 1n 
eadem villa’ [‘Chippenham church with its chapels, 
tithes and all other (?appurtenances) in the same 
vill’], but the second also specifies the chapels: *.. . 
scilicet de Boxa de Bedestona de Slaghtford de 
herdenehum de Tiddrent. . .’ [‘that is to say, at Box, 
Biddestone, Slaughterford, Hardenhuish and 
Tytherton’]'” 

These documents, which seem such a chance 
survival, are sufficient to support the assignment 
of minster status to the church at Chippenham, 
confirming as they do its right to tithes, and to 
pensions from five nearby churches, at Box, 
Biddestone, Slaughterford, Hardenhuish and 
Tytherton, which at this stage were chapels 
dependent upon Chippenham (Fig.2). The date of 
this evidence is sufficiently early to suggest that it 
preserves the relics of at least the late Saxon 
ecclesiastical organisation in Chippenham hundred. 
The presence of another church of high status in 


80 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 2 Chippenham hundred and early C12 parochia 


Kellaways 
Hardenhuish 


) 
f\ 
Langley Burrell 


Chippenham 


Slaughterford 


Corsham 


the hundred, at Corsham, is therefore difficult to 
reconcile with this evidence. It held three hides of 
land in 1086 and was valued at 140s., and given 
the same value as Chippenham in 1291," yet there 
is no evidence to suggest that Corsham’s parish had 
ever extended beyond its late medieval extent, 
especially as Chippenham’s parochia seems to have 
extended around it. The church held by Edgar at 
Poulshot in 1086,'! which was part of Corsham 
manor, seems too far off to have been part of a 
parochia: the connection perhaps derives from 
secular estate links rather than purely ecclesiastical 
dependence. Two possibilities therefore present 
themselves: that Corsham was founded as a late 
Saxon, secondary minster, and that the possession 
of the church by St-Etienne, Caen led that abbey 
to preserve and defend its holdings, rights and 
income. However the evidence may reflect earlier 
factors, as both places were royal manors, Corsham 
appearing as such in Domesday Book, and 
Chippenham appearing in Alfred’s will and being 
the site of an assembly.” It is possible, therefore, 
that churches founded at the sites of royal manors, 
perhaps originally with different intended purposes, 
had retained importance and become effectively a 
pair of minsters, surviving to appear in the 
documentary record as very similar in status and 
function. Even this theory, however, does not 
account for the presence, also in Chippenham 
hundred, of the church recorded at Hazelbury in 
1086,'° though the fact that Box’s chapel was a few 
decades later a church with a parish, in which 
Hazelbury stood, underlines Chippenham’s 
status.!’ 

Sherston’s church was also assigned a relatively 
high valuation in 1291, as it was in Domesday Book 
(28s.), and was recorded in a charter of William 
the Conqueror prior to 1086. It seems to have been 
a church of local high status in Dunlow hundred 
not far to the north-west of Malmesbury (Fig.1).A 
chapel at Alderton is listed in the 1291 taxation 


record, and the ‘Inquisitions of the Ninth’ of 1341 
records others at Little Sherston and Easton Grey 
under the entry for Sherston itself.!* The church 
was granted to the abbey of StWandrille in France, 
and documents confirming the gift show Sherston’s 
status as early as the twelfth century. Popes Innocent 
II (1130-43) and Eugenius III (1145-53) confirmed 
the gift of ‘ecclesitam de Sorestan cum capellis et 
decimis’ [‘Sherston church with its chapels and 
tithes’], Bishop Jocelin that of ‘ecclesiam de 
Sorestan cum capellis et appendicus suis (‘Sherston 
church with its chapels and appurtenances’], and 
Bishop Roger that of ‘ecclesiam de Sorestan cum 
tota decima villae’ [‘Sherston church with all the 
tithes of the vill’],'° suggesting a church with a large 
parish and some rights surviving from at least the 
end of the Saxon period, and probably a parish 
which coincided largely or completely with Dunlow 
hundred as it was c.1086. It seems then that only a 
portion of Sherston’s parish, though it was still the 
largest in the hundred in the nineteenth century, is 
recorded in the poem associated with the figure on 
the church exterior, Known as ‘Rattlebone’. 
According to the poem, noted by Aubrey in the 
seventeenth century, Rattlebone, allegedly Sherston’s 
holder, ‘shalt have Wick, Willesley, Easton Town and 
Pinkney’, as places belonging to Sherston.”” 

Similarly it can be suggested, albeit on the basis 
of more confusing evidence, that churches at 
Bishop’s Cannings and All Cannings were minsters 
for their respective hundreds of Cannings and 
Studfold (Fig.3). Like others in 1091, Bishop’s 
Cannings church was granted, by Bishop Osmund, 
‘cum decimis ceterisque 1bidem adjacentibus’ [‘with 
the tithes and other things attached to them’], and 
in 1291 it was the only church listed in the hundred, 
with the notably high valuation of £53 6s.8d..71 A 
1316 document mentions that nearby Horton was 
then ‘in parochia de Canyngg’ Episcop? [‘in 
Bishop’s Cannings parish’], and the parish of 
Devizes has been suggested to have been carved 
out of Bishop’s Cannings, as perhaps reflected in 
the description of its two churches as ‘capelle’ 
[‘chapels’] in 1226-8.” In neighbouring Studfold 
hundred the church at All Cannings might also be 
expected to show signs of minster status, but the 
1291 valuation was not very high at £13 6s.8d.”’ 
The prebend in Nunnaminster supported by All 
Cannings was given the same value, and could 
therefore double this if added on, but is likely to 
reflect lands in the manor assigned to the prebend, 
not necessarily connected with the church, as well 
as later acquisitions, so caution is warranted. 


MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 381 


The names of Bishop’s Cannings and All 
Cannings could suggest two parts of a once larger 
unit, and secular separation, when All Cannings was 
granted to Nunnaminster, or when Bishop’s 
Cannings came into episcopal hands, may have been 
accompanied by ecclesiastical division: the limited 
later evidence could be used to support this theory. 
Although the name Cannings was retained by the 
hundred in which Bishop’s Cannings stood, the 
hundred meeting-place, it seems, had been on a 
site in the Domesday hundred of Studfold,” so it 
is unclear which of the two places, if either, had 
been the more important prior to division. The 
situation is further complicated by the status of 
other churches in Studfold hundred, as that at 
Urchfont was given the same valuation as All 
Cannings in 1291, and had dependent chapels of 
its own,” and the name of Chirton, also in Studfold 
hundred, suggests an early church of significance 
sufficient to give the place its name,*° and 
presumably founded early enough for the presence 
of a church to be rare locally. This certainly occurred 
before 1086, the date of our first extant record of 
the name. The 1291 value of £10 assigned to 
Chirton is not easy to interpret but is perhaps high 
enough to be a reflection of early foundation if not 
of significant local status: its 1167 holding of a hide 


CANNINGS 


Bishops Cannings 
1091 


#1316 
Horton 


Allington 
* 1100 


=z 


A“. All Cannings 
C13 


N 


— \w 11945 
Devizes Se 


Hundred meeting lace 6@ wC14 


Etchilhampton — Patney 


mc.1124 


Chirton 
wre 1232 lea. 


STUDFOLD 
Fig.3 


Cannings & Studfold 
hundreds, c.1086 


The dates indicate the first 
record ofa church 


The lines indicate ecclesiastical 
links showing dependence on 
Bishops Cannings, 

All Cannings and Urchfont 


may support this.*’ Nonetheless Bishop’s Cannings 
and All Cannings seem ecclesiastically dominant 
in their hundreds and the fact that both All 
Cannings and Urchfont were Nunnaminster 
holdings, and Bishop’s Cannings an episcopal one, 
at the time of Domesday Book, serves to underline 
the potential influence of ecclesiastical institutions 
on the development of parishes. 

Such influence may have been one way in which 
the hundred-minster pattern itself grew up, and 
Malmesbury Abbey’s churches include a similar 
case. King Ecgfrith of Mercia restored 35 hides at 
Purton to abbot Cuthbert and his brethren by S149 
in 796,*° and Purton was, then, an ancient holding 
of the abbey when in 1086 it was at the centre of 
Staple hundred. Limited evidence suggests a 
hundred minster there: St Mary’s church was clearly 
the major one in the hundred in 1291, although its 
valuation, at £21 including the vicarage, is 
inconclusive and hard to interpret,”? but Purton’s 
parish remained the major part of the hundred and 
the interests of its ‘matrix ecclesia’ [‘mother 
church’] were safeguarded when a new oratory was 
founded in the time of Abbot John.*° If Purton was 
indeed a hundred minster then its relationship with 
Cricklade is significant. It was suggested that Purton 
was at one time dependent upon Cricklade, 
although no evidence was quoted, but the boundary 
between Cricklade and Staple hundreds, c.1086, 
certainly suggests that a larger secular unit was 
divided at some point prior to that date, and the 
Geld Rolls, assigning 49 hides to Cricklade hundred 
and 52 to Staple, allow the suggestion of a simple 
division of one administrative unit into two.’! It is 
hard to avoid the suspicion that the reason for such 
division would have been the interests of the major 
landholder in the latter, Malmesbury Abbey, still 
holding 35 hides there in 1086. Further, although 
it cannot be shown that a church existed at that 
date, the hundred-minster pattern is so strongly 
evident elsewhere in Wiltshire that it seems likely 
that the origins of a separate parish for Purton, 
perhaps of a hundred minster there, and even of 
the church building itself, are intertwined and 
related both to the division of a hundred into two 
and to the fact of control by a major late Saxon 
religious institution. Indeed, two such institutions 
may have been involved in this case, since 
Cricklade’s church of St Sampson was in the hands 
of Westminster Abbey by the time of Domesday 
Book. Its origins were earlier: Ealdorman 
ABthelmer, in his will of 971x982/3, left ‘1 pund 
into Cracgelade’ in terms that show he meant a 


82 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


church or minster there, and the presence of pre- 
Conquest sculpture adds to the impression of an 
important church.” It is not known when the 
church was acquired by Westminster Abbey but 
certainly it can be suggested that its status was a 
concern of that abbey by 1086 and that the 
administrative arrangements of the time reveal the 
ability of the two communities to affect the 
ecclesiastical layout. 

Staple may have become a separate hundred, 
then, because of the presence of Malmesbury 
Abbey’s 35-hide estate there, and the desire for 
estates to have churches may have been a factor 
elsewhere, albeit without adjustments to 
administrative divisions. The abbey held an estate 
of 38 hides at Bremhill at the time of Domesday 
Book: the spurious charter of 1065 (S1038) may 
well contain an accurate summary of the minster’s 
estates at that date or shortly after and included 
Euridge, Spirthill, Charlcutt, Foxham, and Avon 
in this estate.*? Though only two miles from Calne 
and within Chippenham hundred in the late 
eleventh century, Bremhill’s church, omitted from 
the 1291 Taxatio, retained a large parish. An 
exemption of Pope Eugenius III refers to “ecclesiam 
de Bremela cum omnibus capellis suis’ [‘Bremhill 
church with all its chapels’), and another document, 
of c.1217-19, reveals that one chapel was at Foxham 
and strongly suggests a connection between the 
churches of Bremhill and Highway.*? Bremhill’s 
dedication to St Martin and remains of early fabric 
in the present structure may be of note in this 
context.* This is in spite of the apparent minster 
status of Chippenham (above): because Bremhill 
remained in Chippenham hundred, rather than 
being reallocated for Malmesbury Abbey’s 
convenience as might be expected, it seems likely 
that it had once been ecclesiastically dependent 
upon Chippenham. Even if that was not the case, 
its later status, showing some minster characteristics 
and certainly local status greater than that of an 
ordinary parish church, may be ascribed to efforts 
by Malmesbury Abbey to defend and promote the 
rights, in turn the result of comparatively early 
foundation, of the church of its Bremhill estate - a 
church the local inhabitants may have regarded as 
their ‘mynster.’® Charters granting 60 hides at 
Bremhill in 937 (S434, 436) to the familia 
[‘community’] at Malmesbury are considered 
fabrications, and S797, granting land at Avon in 
Bremhill to Abbot Aélfric in 974, is thought 
spurious, but the 38-hide estate recorded in 1065 
shows that a substantial holding was in the abbey’s 


Fig.4 Crudwell and Hankerton 


— | 


Braydon Brook 


Hankerton 


* Cloatley 


3¢ Malmesbury Abbey 


0 1 5 
miles 


hands before the Conquest. It was perhaps indeed 
acquired in the tenth century, and it would not be 
surprising if the abbey founded a church on this 
estate, with the influence the abbey was able to wield 
allowing the church’s local status to be established 
at its foundation. 

The origins of All Saints, Crudwell may have 
been similar. In Crudwell’s case, the earliest charter 
with genuine information seems to be S796 of 974 
(on which S797 granting Bremhill may have been 
based) restoring land at Eastcourt in Crudwell to 
Abbot Aélfric, and $1038 of 1065 again records a 
40-hide estate then in Malmesbury’s hands, and a 
smaller one of four hides at Chelworth in Crudwell. 
Earlier, adapted charters (S305, 356) suggest these 
lands came into the abbey’s hands between the 
seventh and ninth centuries, for they may present 
genuine Malmesbury traditions about when the 
lands were acquired. Together, the charters could 
suggest the gradual creation of the Crudwell estate 
from piecemeal acquisitions; or the assembling of 
those acquisitions at one point in time for the 
abbey’s administrative purposes; or the late Saxon 
re-creation or re-assembling of an estate with a more 
complex history. Although the origins of the estate 
may be different from Bremhill’s, then, a church at 
Crudwell may have been founded as part of the 
same process which led the abbey to found one on 
its estate at Bremhill. The church is listed ‘cum 
capellis suis’ [‘with its chapels’] in Eugenius III’s 
exemption, and land described as part of the manor | 
in 1065: 


MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 83 


Item Creddewilla. Terra est xl hid’. De ista terra est 
Estcotun, Hanekynton, Morcotun. Terram istam dedit 
Ethelwifus rex . . . [Likewise Crudwell, where are forty 
hides of land, including Eastcourt, Hankerton and 
Murcott, which land King Aéthelwulf granted . . .] 


corresponds with the area suggested by later 
evidence to have been part of Crudwell’s parish 
(Fig.4). In 1230 churches at Hankerton and 
Eastcourt were dependent, and tithes were due from 
Chedglow and Tothill by Ashley. In 1231 the rector 
claimed tithes in Crudwell, West Crudwell, 
Eastcourt, Chelworth and Murcott, and claimed 
the abbey’s chapel at its manor to be dependent on 
Crudwell’s church also.*’ The rector must have 
thought his claims had some genuine basis - it has 
been suggested that the dues he claimed had been 
owed to the church as part of its income prior to 
arrangements made by Malmesbury Abbey in 1222 
- and Crudwell’s church begins to look like one of 
significant local status, again approaching that of a 
minster. The case is strengthened by the proportions 
of the central core of the present structure, which is 
suggested to date from the tenth or eleventh century, 
and the land belonging to the church c.1222 which, 
at over a carucate ,** is comparable with the 
Domesday Book holdings of Wiltshire churches more 
definitely shown to have been ‘minsters’. 

Kemble’s church does not seem so important 
in the medieval documents, but there was a 
dependent chapel at nearby Ewen in the twelfth 
century, the exemption of Eugenius III including 


= 


ee 


A Grittleton 
g 


1291 


hes 
= 


vs 1179 


‘ecclesiam de Kemela cum capella de Ewlma’ 
[‘Kemble church with Ewen chapel’: the evidence 
is slim but it is worth noting that this was another 
of Malmesbury Abbey’s churches and stood on 
lands, assessed at 30 hides, held by the abbey in 
1086 and constituting one of the three major 
holdings in Cicementone (later Chedglow) hundred 
at that time, the others being Crudwell and 
Brokenborough.*? The 50-hide estate called 
Brokenborough in 1065 (S1038) included 
Grittenham (in Brinkworth), Sutton, Rodbourne, 
Corston, Cowfold (in Malmesbury) and 
Bremilham, but there is no evidence of an early 
church, or one of significant status, at 
Brokenborough. The first mention of a hundred- 
hide estate called Brokenborough is found in a 
forged charter dated 956 (S629): arguably the fairly 
scattered lands assigned to Brokenborough in 1065 
had been assembled by the abbey for its 
administrative convenience, and a significant church 
is not necessarily to be expected since it would not 
be easy for one to serve such dispersed lands. The 
Crudwell and Kemble estates look like more 
coherent units and the relevant charters, however 
doubtful, suggest they are older ones. 

The development of parishes in other parts of 
Wiltshire and of Wessex may also have been affected 
by the influence of monastic holdings. Most relevant 
for Malmesbury Abbey were probably the nearby 
estates of Glastonbury Abbey in Thorngrove 
hundred, and in Startley hundred at Christian 
Malford (Fig.5). These lands were the main 


Fig.5 Thorngrove hundred 
30 Glastonbury Abbey holding 1086 (hidage) 


4281 Date of record of church 


Combe Place named in Domesday Book 


* (Leigh) 20 
28) 4291 Christian Malford 
A~ it * 
20 * 1236 
Nettleton Sevington 
® , aston 
4291 ~~ Kington 29 
(West Kington) . 
* 


84 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Glastonbury holdings in north Wiltshire.*° Although 
Thorngrove hundred was in Malmesbury deanery 
in 1291, there is very little to indicate that 
Malmesbury Abbey had any influence there. In 
contrast, charters survive in Glastonbury Abbey’s 
archive for Grittleton, ‘Langley’ and Nettleton. S472 
grants 25 hides at Grittleton in 940, S473, 30 hides 
at ‘Langley’ the same year, and S504, 20 hides at 
Nettleton in 944. All these grants were to one 
Wulfric, and the abbey felt obliged to adapt at least 
one of them to produce a charter, S625, granting 
the Nettleton holding to Abbot Elswy in 956. The 
lands seem to have been in the abbey’s hands by 
1066, at any rate, since the Domesday hidages of 
Grittleton (30), Kington Langley (29) and 
Nettleton (20) are comparable. The other holdings 
listed in the hundred in 1086 were minor, although 
another charter, S999, granted ten hides at 
Sevington in Nettleton to an A®lfstan in 1043 and 
came to Abingdon Abbey’s archive, although that 
abbey held no Wiltshire lands by 1086. Unless 
Glastonbury Abbey had lost this land, and then 
recovered it before 1066, it suggests that a Nettleton 
estate may once have been larger, at 30 hides. 
Coupled with the possibility of a sub-Roman 
Christian site at Nettleton,"! this evidence makes it 
tempting to suggest Nettleton as the secular and 
ecclesiastical centre of the hundred, but the 1291 
valuation of £10 13s.4d. is hard to interpret and 
comparable with Grittleton’s, at £10. 

However, Kington St Michael had a higher 
valuation of £20 in 1291, and its place-name 
suggests some administrative function. Had the 
church there had high ecclesiastical status also, it 
was perhaps largely lost when the major institution 
at Glastonbury acquired a total of 79 of the 100 
hides listed in Thorngrove hundred in 1086. These 
lands were, though, granted piecemeal to Wulfric - 
the gradual dismemberment of a possible larger unit 
may have as much to do with this loss of status as 
did the standing or actions of the eventual 
beneficiary, although the lands may well have come 
to the abbey’s hands all at once, if the De Antiquitate 
is correct in saying that Wulfric’s successor Ak lfwine 
became a monk at Glastonbury, bringing land with 
him.’ However, the Domesday evidence does not 
fit with the idea of much status for Kington St 
Michael, the only estate so named in 1086 being of 
a mere 1% hides, and this had itself been held of 
the abbey, by one Alwine, in 1066:" the rest of the 
later parish was perhaps dealt with as part of one of 
Glastonbury’s other estates in the hundred, 
probably the ‘Langheler identified as Kington 


Langley. Kington St Michael’s 1291 valuation, then, 
and perhaps its ecclesiastical independence, may 
have been only the result of the foundation of a 
priory there in the first half of the twelfth century. 
Churches at West Kington and Langley were valued 
at only £5 and £6 13s.4d. respectively in 1291 and 
do not therefore seem superior to Kington St 
Michael, so the place-name links are apparently 
unhelpful. It remains possible that a minster was 
alienated by the abbey, which retained most of the 
actual land, and came to the hands of Alwine as his 
1'4-hide estate, held of the abbey in 1066, 1% hides 
being, from comparison with the churches 
specifically listed in Domesday Book, a plausible 
holding for a minster at that date. 

Whichever church, if any, was a local minster, 
estate fission or the influence of a powerful 
ecclesiastical landholder, or both of these factors, 
resulted in the hundred’s churches seeming 
relatively undifferentiated in status in later sources. 
Church scot was due, in the thirteenth and 
fourteenth centuries, at those churches held by 
Glastonbury," but as is so often the case, it is not 
specified to which church it was owed. The abbey, 
it may be suspected, had been able to assign church 
scot from these places to itself, or to the churches 
it held, at the expense of a former minster, and 
perhaps in promoting lesser churches at settlements 
on its estates it had effectively caused a minster to 
disappear more completely than most in Wiltshire. 
Holding most of the hundred’s lands, it had not 
itself lost anything by such a process, though it had 
become involved in the development of the parish 
network towards that which would be familiar later. 
Similarly, the abbey held much land in the Deverills 
in Heytesbury hundred, with, in 1086, ten hides at 
Monkton Deverill and ten at Longbridge Deverill,” 
and the difficulty in either identifying a minster for 
a possible earlier ‘Deverill’ estate, or tying the 
Deverills ecclesiastically to the minster at 
Heytesbury, may be due to similar factors. 

As with the fact of Glastonbury Abbey’s 
domination of Thorngrove hundred, so Christian 
Malford’s case shows that Malmesbury Abbey was 
not all-powerful in its region. The church, in Startley 
hundred and closer to Malmesbury’s core estates, 
is found in medieval documents with hints of 
minster status. A dispute over tithes was settled in 
1236 and the document recording the agreement 
refers to the church at Christian Malford as a 
‘mother church’, and mortuaries were due to the 
rector early in the sixteenth century,’’ but these 
rights apply only to Christian Malford’s own parish 


MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHIRE 85 


and, given the dates, are no more than suggestive. 
More significant may be the burial at Bradenstoke, 
recorded in 1300, which should have taken place 
at Christian Malford, even though Bradenstoke was 
in the neighbouring hundred of Kingsbridge, and 
interestingly lands in nearby Stanton St Quintin and 
in Littleton Drew (in Dunlow hundred), also 
Glastonbury holdings, ‘ought to lie in Christian 
Malford’, according to Domesday Book, underlining 
at least its secular status.** The place-name, recorded 
in the 940 charter (below), may be a relic of early 
Christian associations, preserving as it does the 
memory of a cross by the ford,”’ but need not reveal 
anything about the origins of the church, unless the 
cross, perhaps held in veneration locally, contributed 
to the decision to found one, but the evidence does 
suggest some status above the ordinary for All Saints 
church, linked perhaps with administrative and 
lordship patterns ignoring, if not predating, the 
Domesday hundredal layout. The origins of this 
status, and perhaps of the church itself, may therefore 
lie in the acquisition of a 20-hide land unit there by 
Glastonbury Abbey in 940. By 1066 it was one of 
the abbey’s major Wiltshire holdings: so the building 
of a church to serve the estate would perhaps be 
unsurprising. Again then, the church looks likely to 
have been founded in the late Anglo-Saxon period 
to serve an estate granted to an ecclesiastical holder, 
and these circumstances, and the lack of any 
documentation indicating Christian Malford’s 
dependence upon Malmesbury Abbey, which would 
perhaps be expected, would suggest that the church’s 
status was decided at the time of foundation, in this 
case perhaps by negotiation with that abbey. That 
the evidence for Christian Malford’s status is limited 
may perhaps be due to the fact that by 1229 the 
church was ‘at the disposal’ of the Bishop of Bath 
and Wells:*° if it had indeed been a Glastonbury 
foundation, by this date it had been lost or alienated 
with adverse effects on its status or on the 
documentary record thereof, or both. 

This kind of limited, suggestive evidence is 
typical of anumber of Wiltshire churches: evidence 
which suggests the kind of local standing which 
might not now be associated with that of a minster, 
but standing which, deriving perhaps from the rights 
and duties resulting in turn from relatively early 
foundation, might have been associated by the later 
Anglo-Saxons with a mynster. Whether such 
churches can be numbered among the ranks of 
secondary or lesser minsters, or whether they were 
simply among the earliest churches to acquire rights 
and duties and, therefore, parishes, what they tend 


to have in common is that they served estates held 
by religious institutions reformed, founded or 
endowed in the late Anglo-Saxon period: houses 
such as Shaftesbury, Wilton, Old Minster, 
Winchester, Glastonbury and Malmesbury. 
Further, frequently the lands can be shown to have 
been in monastic hands from the tenth century or 
before, and often there is surviving structure 
suggested to date from the late Anglo-Saxon period. 

It is speculative, perhaps, to attempt to link the 
foundation of such churches directly with monastic 
reform per se, although in Malmesbury’s case there 
are some grounds for believing that such reform 
could affect parochial geography. Glastonbury’s 
reform is well known, Malmesbury’s perhaps less 
so: it was said to have consisted of a community of 
canons until reformed by Edgar to a more strict 
one of monks.*! The community seems to have 
regarded Ss Peter and Paul as its chief patrons until 
the tenth century when abbot /elfric changed this 
in favour of St Mary, and it therefore seems quite 
possible that the church of Ss Peter and Paul, whose 
remains still stand in the monastic precinct, stood 
on the site of the early chief church of the minster, 
its function perhaps changing in the tenth ceniury: 
reform as part of the movement led by Dunstan, 
7ethelwold and Oswald might have led to a desire 
for separation of pastoral functions from more 
strictly ‘monastic’ ones. 

More generally, an argument that the foundation 
of ‘estate churches’ or ‘estate minsters’ - phrases 
which seem to describe the nature of churches such 
as those at Crudwell, Bremhill, and indeed Purton - 
can be understood in the context of late Anglo-Saxon 
religious revival, may be on firmer ground. A 
consensus in the recent secondary literature of the 
late Anglo-Saxon monastic reform is that the 
movement was not only about rebuilding and 
reconstituting certain communities and their 
buildings: it touched, says Cubitt for example, on an 
‘extraordinary range of Anglo-Saxon life’, and 
Stafford points out the aspect of the revival as a 
response to real spiritual needs of the tenth century.” 
Tellenbach, discussing proprietary churches in a 
European context, points out other motivations for 
church building - control of dependents, the 
acquisition of offerings and dues by the new church’s 
builder or owner - but suggests that the financial 
returns would be small and that the main motivation 
was faith.” Yorke writes that regeneration of the 
whole Christian people was one aim of the revival 
and that the parochial work of priests was necessary 
for this to be achieved:™ if there was a desire or 


86 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


perceived need to create a truly Christian kingdom, 
as the sources of the time suggest there was, then 
the parish clergy were the ones to teach the laity 
about morality, prayer, veneration of the saints and 
obligations towards the poor, and the bishops were 
in turn the ones to teach their clergy how to do 
that: and of course many of the late Anglo-Saxon 
bishops were monks from reformed institutions. 

Zelfric of Cerne and Wulfstan are probably the 
key contemporary writers. Aélfric in his pastoral 
letters shows a preoccupation with morality - writing 
them for bishops to distribute to their parish clergy, 
he enjoins frequent attendance at church, in order 
that priests could teach the basics of the faith, and 
urges priests to visit the sick and baptise children, 
but only to do so in their own parishes, which 
implies that arrangements ought to have been made 
for churches served by priests to have designated 
parishes. A little later Wulfstan, ‘the Wolf’, urges 
that all men should teach the paternoster and creed 
to their children, as well as pay their tithes and 
church-scot.”? These writings may reflect more 
idealism than practice, though Loyn considers that 
the monastic reform did in fact penetrate deeply 
into the secular church, and this may have happened 
not least through the role of priests in local legal 
cases, oaths and ordeals. The ‘recipients of reform’, 
he says, were the ‘villages, hamlets, towns and 
townships’.°® This was perhaps all the more true, 
then, at churches in settlements on monastic estates. 
Yorke sees the building of local churches in the 
context of evangelisation and the climate created 
by the reform movement,” but much discussion of 
church foundation in the late Saxon period has 
focused largely on the role of laymen as founders 
of ‘proprietary’ chapels, as for example on thegnly 
estates, which in time became the parish churches 
of many settlements. In Wiltshire the ‘in-between’ 
churches, as John Blair has termed them 
(pers.comm., 2000), show that the lordship of 
religious communities, and of bishops, in an 
atmosphere of religious revival, could have just as 
important an effect upon the amplification of the 
parochial system. 


Notes 


' Heather Edwards, The Charters of the Early West Saxon 
Kingdom, BAR Brit.Ser.198 (1988), pp.87-100. All 
dates are A.D.. 

° Charters of Shaftesbury, ed. Susan E. Kelly, British 
Academy Anglo-Saxon Charters V (1996), pp.3-10. 

>J.M.A. Pitt, Wiltshire Minster Parochiae and West Saxon 
Ecclesiastical Organisation, PhD thesis (University 


of Southampton 1999), which contains further details 
and discussion of Wiltshire minster parochiae. 

‘ For the reconstruction of Wiltshire’s hundreds and their 
boundaries around the time of Domesday, and all 
references to these below including the 1086 hundred 
boundaries shown on the maps, F.R. Thorn, ‘Hundreds 
and wapentakes’, in The Wiltshire Domesday, ed. N.A. 
Hooper & E.R. Thorn, Alecto Historical Editions 
(1989), pp.31-45 and Map VI accompanying. 

> Nonarum Inquisitiones in Curia Scaccarii temp. Regis 
Edwardi III, ed. G. Vanderzee, Rec.Comm. (1807), 
p.167. 

° VCH Wilts 2 (1955), pp.196, 211-2. 

’ Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, B.L. ms. Add.15667, 
fo.39. Another document, recording a composition 
over tithes of Beckhampton owed to the abbey, may 
suggest the origin of the pension due: Cartulary of 
Malmesbury Abbey, B.L. Lansdowne ms. 417, fo.108. 

® Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate papae 
Nicholai circa 1291, ed. S. Ayscough & J. Caley, 
Rec.Comm. (1802). 

° Corston: Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, B.L. Add. 
ms. 15667, fo.72v (undated); Norton & Sutton: 
Registrum Malmesburiense, ed. J.S. Brewer & C.T. 
Martin, 2 vols, Rolls Ser. 72/1-2, (1879-80), Vol.I 
pp.348-52 [Pope Eugenius III]; Smithcot: The 
Register of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315- 
1330, Vol.1, ed. Kathleen Edwards, 2 vols, 
Cant.&York Soc. 55-6 (1959-60), Vol.I p.369; The 
Register of John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury 1388- 
1395, ed. T.C.B. Timmins, Cant.& York Soc. 80 
(1994), p.74 [1327, 1390]. 

'© Reg. Malm., vol.II p.16; The Cartularies of Southwick 
Priory, ed. Katharine A. Hanna, 2 vols, Hampshire 
Record Series 9, 10 (1988, 1989), vol.I pp.10-12. 

"| Wiltshire Domesday, fo.64v; Taxatio, p.189. 

" Cartulary of Monkton Farleigh priory, WSRO 192/54, 
fo.1. B. Kemp (pers.comm. 2000) believes the charter 
to be authentic and dated to 1139. The document is 
damaged and the missing word was probably 
appendicis or pertinenciis. 

5 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65; Taxatio, p.188. 

'! Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65. 

‘The document known as ‘the Fonthill letter’ mentions 
Chippenham in terms that indicate a royal residence 
there soon after Alfred’s time: “The Fonthill Letter’, 
ed. S. Keynes, in M. Korhammer et al. (eds), Words, 
Texts and Manuscripts: Studies in Anglo-Saxon 
Culture Presented to Helmut Gneuss on the Occasion 
of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (1992), pp.53-97. Asser 
also mentions a royal estate at Chippenham, recording 
the wedding there in 853 of Alfred’s sister AXthelswith 
to King Burgred of Mercia, though he is the only 
source to record the location of the event: Alfred the 
Great: Asser’s Life of Alfred and other contemporary 
sources, ed. & trans. S. Keynes & M. Lapidge (1983), 
p.69. Ifhe is correct the existence of a church, by the 
mid ninth century, is certainly to be deduced. 


MALMESBURY ABBEY AND LATE SAXON PAROCHIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WILTSHJRE 87 


16 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65v. 

'” Cartulary of Monkton Farleigh, fo.1, where a charter 
of 1227 records the grant to the priory of the church 
of “Boxa iuxta Farlegh” with tithes and land “de 
parochia ecclesie de Boxe”. 

'8 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.65v; Regesta Regum Anglo- 
Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066-1087), 
ed. D. Bates (1998), p.792; Taxatio, p.189; Nonarum 
Ing., p.164. 

'° Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense alias dictum Registrum 
Sancti Osmundi Episcop1: The Register of S. 
Osmund, ed. W.H. Rich Jones, 2 vols, Rolls Ser. 78/ 
1-2 (1883-4), vol.I pp.231-3. 

20 Wiltshire: the topographical collections of J. Aubrey, 
corrected and enlarged by J.E. Jackson, WA&NHS 
(1862), pp.106-9. 

21 Reg. S. Osmund, vol.I pp.198-200; Taxatio, p.182. 

22 The Register of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 
1315-1330, 2 vols, ed. C.R. Elrington, Canterbury 
&York Society 57-8 (1963-72), vol.II p.185; VCH 
Wilts 10, pp.237-8, 285. 

 Taxatio, p.189. 

24 J.E.B.Gover, A. Mawer & F.M. Stenton, The Place- 
Names of Wiltshire (1939), p.249. 

> Taxatio, p.180; VCH Wilts 10, p.186. 

26 Gover, Mawer & Stenton, Place-Names of Wiltshire, 
p.312. 

27 Taxatio, p.180; VCH Wilts 10, p.69. 

28 Edwards, Charters, pp.121-6. 

2° Taxatio, p.190. 

3° Reg. Malm., vol.II pp.22-3. 

31 T.R. Thomson, Materials for a History of Cricklade, 
Cricklade Historical Society (1958-61); VCH Wilts 
2, pp.183, 186. 

>? Wiltshire Domesday, fo.67; Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. 
Dorothy Whitelock (1930), pp.24-7, 125-8; H.M. & 
Joan Taylor, ‘An Anglo-Saxon pilaster, St Sampson’s 
church, Cricklade’, WANHM 58 (1961-3), pp.16- 
17. 

33 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.67; Reg. Malm., vol.I pp.321- 
5: 

34 Reg. Malm., vol.I pp.348-52, 401-4. 

3> H.M. & Joan Taylor, Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 3 vols 
(1965-78), vol.I p.98. 

3° For discussion of the use of the terms ‘minster’ and 
‘mynster see e.g. Sarah Foot, ‘Anglo-Saxon minsters: 
a review of terminology’, in J. Blair & R. Sharpe (eds), 
Pastoral Care Before the Parish (1992), pp. 212-25. 

37 Reg. Malm., vol.I pp.264-7, 348-53, 386-90. 

38 VCH Wilts 14, pp.61-2. 

39 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.67. 

40 Wiltshire Domesday, fo.66v. 

41 WJ. Wedlake et al., The Excavation of the Shrine of 

- Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, 1956-1971, Reports 
of the Research Committee of the Society of 
Antiquaries of London No. XL (1982), pp.104-5; M. 
Millett, review of W.J. Wedlake et al., The Excavation 
of the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, in The 


Archaeological Journal 140 (1983), p.360. 

* J. Scott, The Early History of Glastonbury: An Edition, 
Translation and Study of William of Malmesbury’s 
De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie (1981), pp.118-9. 

® Wiltshire Domesday, fo.72v. 

 Rentalia et custumarium monasterium Glastoniae, B.L. 
Add. ms. 17450, ff.32v & 166 (Grittleton); 34 & 163- 
164v (Nettleton); Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, 
B.L. Egerton ms. 3321, ff.238rv (Nettleton), 241lv 
(Grittleton) & 245v (Kington [Langley?]). 

® Wiltshire Domesday, fo.66v. 

*© The Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, ed. Vera C.M. 
London, Wiltshire Record Society 35 (1979), pp.66- 
Us 

*” Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, B.L. Harley ms. 3961, 
fo.84v. 

*8 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, Diocesis Saresbiriensis, 
A.D. 1297-1315, ed. C.T. Flower & M.C.B. Dawes, 
2 vols, Cant.& York Soc. 40-41 (1934), p.28; Wiltshire 
Domesday, fo.66v. 

*° Gover, Mawer & Stenton, Place-Names of Wiltshire, 
p.67. 

°° Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, p.66. 

>! Tn 974 according to the abbey’s cartulary: Reg. Malm., 
Vol.I pp.316-8. 

52 Catherine Cubitt, ‘Review article: the tenth-century 
Benedictine reform in England’, Early Medieval 
Europe 6 (1997), pp.77-94, at 77; Pauline A. Stafford, 
‘Church and society in the age of Aélfric’, in P. 
Szarmach & B. Huppé (eds), The Old English Homily 
and its Backgrounds (1978), pp.11-42, at 12. 

°3 G. Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from 
the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (1993), p.77. 

>4 Barbara Yorke, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (1995), 
p.227. 

>> Councils and Synods with other Documents relating 
to the English Church, 1, AD 871-1204 Part I 871- 
1066, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, M. Brett & C.N.L. 
Brooke (1981), pp.191, 255, 313. 

5° H.R. Loyn, The English Church, 940-1154 (2000), 
pp.28, 31. 

*7 Yorke, Wessex, p.229. 


Manuscript Sources 


Cartulary of Monkton Farleigh priory, Wiltshire Record 
Office, Acc.no. 192/54 

Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, British Library Add. 
ms. 15667 

Cartulary of Malmesbury Abbey, British Library 
Lansdowne ms. 417 

Rentalia et custumarium monasterium Glastoniae, British 
Library Add. ms. 17450 

Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, British Library Egerton 
ms. 3321 

Cartulary of Glastonbury Abbey, British Library Harley 
ms. 3961 


88 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Bibliography and Abbreviations 


S refers to the numbers allocated to Anglo-Saxon charters 
by SAWYER, P.H. 1968, Anglo-Saxon Charters: 
an Annotated List and Bibliography. London: Royal 
Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8, and 
revised edition by Susan E. Kelly (forthcoming), and 
to comments therein regarding authenticity and 
dating. 

VCH Wilts: The Victoria History of the Counties of 
England: A History of Wiltshire: Vol.2,ed. R.B. Pugh 
& Elizabeth Crittall (London 1955), Vol.10, ed. 
Elizabeth Crittall (Oxford 1975), Vol.14, ed. D.A. 
Crowley (Oxford 1991) 


AYSCOUGH, S. & CALEY, J. eds 1802, Taxatio 
Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae auctoritate papae 
Nicholai circa 1291. London: Record Commission 

BATES, D. ed. 1998, Regesta Regum Anglo- 
Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066-1087). 
Oxford: Clarendon Press 

BREWER, J.S. & MARTIN, C.T. eds 1879-80, 
Registrum Malmesburiense. 2 vols, London: Rolls 
Series 72/1-2 

CUBITT, Catherine 1997. Review article: the tenth- 
century Benedictine reform in England. Early 
Medieval Europe 6, 77-94 

EDWARDS, Heather 1988, The Charters of the Early 
West Saxon Kingdom. Oxford: British Archaeological 
Reports, British Series 198 

EDWARDS, Kathleen ed. 1959-60, The Register of Roger 
Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315-1330, Vol.1, 2 
vols, London: Canterbury & York Society 55-6 

ELRINGTON, C.R. ed. 1963-72, The Register of Roger 
Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315-1330, Vol.2. 2 
vols, London: Canterbury &York Society 57-8 

FLOWER, C.T. & DAWES, M.C.B. eds 1934, Registrum 
Simonis de Gandavo, Diocesis Saresbiriensis, A.D. 
1297-1315. 2 vols, London: Canterbury &York 
Society 40-41 

FOOT, Sarah 1992, ‘Anglo-Saxon minsters: a review of 
terminology’, in J. Blair & R. Sharpe (eds), Pastoral 
Care Before the Parish, 212-25. Leicester: Univ Press 

GOVER, J.E.B., MAWER A. & STENTON, F.M. 1939, 
The Place-Names of Wiltshire. London: English 
Place-Name Society 16 

HANNA, Katharine A. ed. 1988-9, The Cartularies of 
Southwick Priory. 2 vols, Winchester: Hampshire 
Record Series 9, 10 

HOOPER, N.A. & THORN, F.R. eds 1989, The Wiltshire 
Domesday. London: Alecto Historical Editions 

JACKSON, J.E. ed. 1862, Wiltshire: the topographical 
collections of J. Aubrey, corrected and enlarged by 
J_E. Jackson. Devizes: Wiltshire Archaeological & 
Natural History Society 

KELLY, Susan E. ed. 1996, Charters of Shaftesbury. 
Oxford: British Academy Anglo-Saxon Charters V 


KEYNES, S. ed. 1992, ‘The Fonthill Letter’, in M. 
Korhammer et al. (eds), Words, Texts and Manuscripts: 
Studies in Anglo-Saxon Culture Presented to Helmut 
Gneuss on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 
53-97. Cambridge: University Press 

KEYNES, S. & LAPIDGE, M. eds 1983, Alfred the 
Great: Asser’s Life of Alfred and other contemporary 
sources. Harmondsworth: Penguin 

LONDON, Vera C.M. ed. 1979, The Cartulary of 
Bradenstoke Priory. Devizes: Wiltshire Record 
Society 35 

LOYN, H.R. 2000, The English Church, 940-1154. 
London: Longman 

MILLETT, M 1983. review of W.J. Wedlake et al., The 
Excavation of the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, 
Wiltshire. The Archaeological Journal 140, 360 

PITT, J.M.A. 1999, Wiltshire Minster Parochiae and West 
Saxon Ecclesiastical Organisation. University of 
Southampton: PhD thesis 

RICH JONES, W.H. ed. 1883-4, Vetus Registrum 
Sarisberiense alias dictum Registrum Sancti Osmundi 
Episcopi: The Register of S. Osmund. 2 vols, London: 
Rolls Series 78/1-2 

SCOTT, J. 1981, The Early History of Glastonbury: An 
Edition, Translation and Study of William of 
Malmesbury’s De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie. 
Woodbridge: Boydell 

STAFFORD, Pauline A. 1978, ‘Church and society in 
the age of Aélfric’ in P. Szarmach & B. Huppé (eds), 
The Old English Homily and its Backgrounds, 11- 
42. Albany: State University of New York Press 

TAYLOR, H.M. & Joan 1961-3. An Anglo-Saxon pilaster, 
St Sampson’s church, Cricklade. WANHM 58, 16-17 

TAYLOR, H.M. & Joan 1965-78, Anglo-Saxon 
Architecture. 3 vols, Cambridge: University Press 

THOMSON, TR. 1958-61, Materials for a History of 
Cricklade. Oxford: Cricklade Historical Society 

TELLENBACH, G. 1993, The Church in Western 
Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century. 
Cambridge: University Press 

TIMMINS, T.C.B. ed. 1994, The Register of John 
Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury 1388-1395. London: 
Canterbury & York Society 80 

VANDERZEE, G. ed. 1807, Nonarum Inquisitiones in 
Curia Scaccarii temp. Regis Edwardi III. London: 
Record Commission 

WEDLAKE, WJ. et al. 1982, The Excavation of the Shrine 
of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, 1956-1971. London: 
Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of 
Antiquaries of London No. XL 

WHITELOCK, Dorothy ed. 1930, Anglo-Saxon Wills. 
Cambridge: University Press 

WHITELOCK, Dorothy, BRETT, M. & BROOKE, 
C.N.L. eds 1981, Councils and Synods with other 
Documents relating to the English Church, 1, AD 
871-1204 Part I 871-1066. Oxford: Clarendon Press 

YORKE, Barbara A.E. 1995, Wessex in the Early Middle 
Ages. London: Leicester University Press 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 89-97 


The Wiltshire Natural History Forum 1974-2002 


by Michael Darby 


The history of the Forum from its inception in May 1974 to its disbandment in August 2002 is traced, and 
its main involvements detailed. These included: attempting to establish a new natural history post in the 
county; caring for natural history collections in the county’s museums; helping to set up the Biological 
Records Centre; organising two Wetlands Symposia; helping to set up the Wiltshire branch of the Farming 
and Wildlife Advisory Group; making recommendations on waste disposal; publishing lists of courses and 
events; organising the Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project and publishing The Flora of Wiltshire; making 


recommendations on Structure Plans; and much else. 


The early 1970s was a period of impending changes 
for natural historians in Wiltshire. Mounting 
concern about the impact of human activities on 
the environment brought not just a demand for new 
approaches to conservation, but also focussed 
attention on the need for tighter legislation, 
particularly regarding planning. Both placed a 
premium on specific information about biodiversity, 
habitats and species, which Wiltshire’s natural 
historians, most of whom were amateurs, were ill- 
equipped to meet. The Nature Conservancy 
Council (NCC, now English Nature), which had 
covered Wiltshire from its Newbury office but 
opened a branch in Devizes in 1993, and to a lesser 
extent the Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation 
(WTNGC, now the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust), which 
had been founded in 1962, had specific 


responsibilities, but were to some extent 
circumscribed in their activities by difficulties in 
_ establishing networks of local contacts. 


One might have expected that WANHS, as the 


_ single organisation with a remit to adopt a county- 
| wide view, would have taken the lead, but this was 
| not the case. The relationship between WANHS 
| natural historians and archaeologists was not close. 
| In 1946, the naturalists formed a separate Natural 
| History Section with its own subscription for those 


| who were not ‘full? members of the Society. Later 
the Society allowed offprints of the natural history 


section in WANHM to be circulated to Section 
members. The impetus to resolve the disharmony 
between the two disciplines was to come from the 
Community Council for Wiltshire, which had been 
formed in 1965 to implement the policies and 
programmes of the National Council of Social 
Services (now the National Council for Voluntary 
Organisations) at the local level. Specifically, it acted 
as a focal point for all voluntary organisations by 
providing not just advice and assistance, but also 
the opportunity to meet statutory bodies with like 
interests on common ground. Initially, however, the 
Community Council, although perfectly positioned 
to help, lacked a member of staff with a concern 
for natural history issues. It was not until after ‘a 
very full process of consultation including a 
conference at Market Lavington with voluntary 
bodies and statutory authorities’, that application 
was successfully made to the Development 
Commission for grant-aid to establish the new post 
of Countryside Liaison Officer. 

Peter Newell, who took up the post on 1 May 
1973, had joined the Council in February 1968 as 
assistant secretary working mainly on village halls. 
With a specific remit to foster links and encourage 
new initiatives, he immediately involved himself in 
talks with many of the organisations and individuals 
concerned with natural history in the county. By 
the end of the autumn he had a clear understanding 


| The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5LZ 


90 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


of the main issues, and on 19 December 1973 he 
organised an informal meeting between the parties 
involved at the Braeside Residential Centre, 
Devizes, to discuss how matters might be resolved. 
Present were many members of the Natural History 
Section including Beatrice Gillam, Geoffrey 
Webber, Lesley Balfe, Ann Hutchison, Beverley 
Heath, Philip Horton, the NCC’s Regional Officer 
and a representative of the WI'NC. After identifying 
the tasks which needed to be tackled, the meeting’s 
main recommendation was that a Wiltshire Natural 
History Forum — the name was devised by Horton 
— should be set up to facilitate the work. More 
specifically, six requirements of the Forum were 
identified: 


1. Provide a focal point for natural history societies 
and other bodies; 

2. Co-ordinate recording and field work in 
consultation with appropriate national bodies; 

3. Ensure that adequate provision for natural history 
collections was made in museums and that they 
were developed, especially for educational 
purposes; 

4. Encourage a greater interest in natural history 
particularly amongst the young; 

5. Provide a means through which natural historians 
could express their views; 

6. Support the work of natural history societies. 


Organisations concerned with natural history 
were invited to become members of the Forum to 
which they would pay a small annual subscription. 
These points formed the basis of a detailed paper, 
prepared by Newell, titled Proposals for the 
Establishment of a Wiltshire Natural History 
Forum, which was ratified at a second informal 
meeting on 7 February 1974. 

The inaugural meeting of the Forum took place 
on 6 May 1974 at West Lavington village hall and 
was attended by twenty-four representatives of 
different organisations both regional and national. 
In the first category these included four officers 
from Wiltshire County Council (Education, and 
Library and Museums Departments), three from 
WANHS, two from WTNC, two from Lackham 
College of Agriculture, two from Westbury 
Naturalists, and in the latter category, 
representatives from the Workers’ Educational 
Association, British Deer Society, Forestry 
Commission and the Army Bird Watching Society. 
Seven of those attending had earlier been involved, 
as individuals, in the exploratory meetings. The 
inaugural meeting was chaired by John Price, a 


member of the WI'NC Field Committee and on © 


the staff of the County Education Authority (and 
who would be elected on to the Council of the 
Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum shortly 
before the meeting) after it was put to him that he 
had the advantage of ‘being a younger person who 
is not so closely associated with the county set’. 
The meeting was carefully choreographed by 
Newell who not only issued copies of his Proposals 
to all those invited to attend, but also provided Price 
with a detailed set of guidance notes. In addition, 
he persuaded Harold Cory, Chairman of the 
Management Committee of the Salisbury Museum, 
to speak on the subject of Museum collections and 
Philip Horton on Biological Recording (Cory was 
subsequently unable to attend and Horton spoke 
for him). 

After dealing with statutory matters, the main 
business of the inaugural meeting concerned the 
two talks. Interestingly, both made clear the need 
for a professional Natural History Curator. Such 
an appointment had already been proposed by 
WANHS, and a policy paper was in course of 
preparation by the Curatorial sub-committee of the 
Wiltshire Museums Council. Now, however, the 
appointment was given priority by the Forum when 
it was agreed that Horton and Newell would draft 
a separate paper of their own setting out the terms 
and conditions of the post, and that both papers 
would then be discussed at the Forum’s next 
meeting. 

The reason why the members of the Forum 
attached such importance to the post was because 
it impacted on several of the key areas they had 
identified for action. Alison Maddock, a student 
on the Leicester University Museums Course, had 
just produced a damning report on the state of 
natural history collections in Wiltshire Museums. 
This made clear that all the collections were 
incomplete and often in poor condition. In other 
words they were inadequate to serve the needs of 
potential users and urgently required professional 
attention. Furthermore, a debate was needed about 
how they should be displayed to the public. 

In addition to these curatorial concerns, the 
Forum also saw the post as having an important 
part to play in the development of biological 
recording. That the first moves in establishing a 
Records Centre were taking place under Dick 
Sandell in WANHS library (see below), provided a 
convenient reason for linking two essentially 
different concerns. Finally, a professional natural 
historian was seen as important in relieving the 


THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 91 


NCC of part of the burden of providing advice to 
the general public, which was taking up a 
considerable amount of time, and of helping it to 
ensure certain minimum standards in field work. It 
had also been suggested that the Curator take on 
secretarial responsibility for the Forum itself. 

Shortly before the inaugural meeting of the 
Forum, the Community Council had moved office 
to Wyndhams in St. Joseph’s Place off the Bath 
Road, Devizes. Wyndhams would soon house offices 
of both the NCC and the WTNC, and Newell’s 
task was facilitated by the close contact he then 
had with these organisations. It explains why John 
Price, with his involvement in WINC, education 
and museum administration was approached to act 
as Chairman. The influence of the NCC and the 
WTNC certainly appears to be evident in Newell 
and Horton’s paper, in which, after covering the 
points made above, they floated the suggestion that 
the headquarters of the new curator should not be 
in one of the Museums, but in Wyndhams. 

With hindsight it might seem unrealistic to try 
to link a curatorial post with field naturalists and 
also development of the proposed biological records 
centre. However at that time resources were very 
limited. There were only two professional naturalists 
(NCC and WTNO), one of whom had only recently 
been appointed. It made sense, therefore, to try to 
maximise these resources by proposing that the 
three posts work together as a team based in the 
same building. 

The problems were brought home clearly when, 
firstly, no single provider of funds for the post could 
be found, and secondly, a discussion at the Forum’s 
second meeting on 29 August 1974, highlighted the 
fact that the different requirements of the role would 
need separate management involving different, 
potentially conflicting priorities. (Although this did 
not stop the members from agreeing at this meeting 
that the postholder’s first priority should be ‘to 
develop natural history collections, displays and 
records in the museums.’) 

It was hardly surprising that debate about the 
post rumbled on for several years. In May 1976 
Newell was still attempting to impress the Director 
of the County Library and Museum Service with 
the need to get on with the appointment but, three 
years later, at a meeting on 25 October 1977, it was 
noted that there was ‘no likelihood for obtaining a 
Natural History Curator except perhaps on a 
temporary basis under the County Council and 
then principally for rescue work on the Salisbury 
Collections’. The matter was not finally resolved 


until 1981 when Susan Cross was appointed on a 
short term contract funded jointly by the Area 
Museums Council and WANHS (Sandell Trust) to 
work in the Devizes Museum. By this time Forum 
involvement was minimal, and all trace of the field 
naturalist aspect of the post had disappeared, 
together with the possibility of its being based in 
Wyndhams. 

Already detectable in the Forum’s involvement 
with the Natural History Curator’s post was a 
problem it would face throughout much of its 
existence: the difficulty of making a clear distinction 
between its role as a facilitator of communications 
between its members, and its desire, when it could 
clearly see that those same bodies were failing, not 
to appear ambivalent, and to act in an executive 
capacity. To a certain extent this was a reflection of 
its object, as laid down in the constitution, to 
promote co-operation, wording which clearly 
implied a pro-active approach. But, it was also the 
result of the specific nature of the interests of the 
affiliated members, as opposed to the general 
responsibilities which the Forum took upon itself. 
Put another way, one could say that it would really 
have liked to have stepped into WANHS’ shoes, but 
couldn’t, a point which was made several years later 
by Edward Elliott when he wrote: ‘I have always 
seen the existence of the Forum as a reflection of 
WANHS failure to live up to its former role as the 
County centre of knowledge and leadership in 
natural history affairs’. 

As a corollary it is worth noting that Newell 
and Price gave unofficial encouragement to the 
members of the Natural History Section, who were 
actively considering breaking away completely from 
WANHS, to be even more radical by forming a 
separate ‘Naturalist Organisation’ in conjunction 
with the WTNC. Had such an organisation come 
into existence much of the Forum’s work would 
undoubtedly have been made easier. But the Section 
was reported to be ‘in the throes of self 
examination’, and in the event nothing came of it. 
The Section’s feelings remained sensitive for some 
time to come as, for example, in 1976 when it 
declined to pay its annual affiliation fee because it 
considered that the Forum had acted in an executive 
capacity by organising Christmas parties and over 
the Biological Record Centre (see below). 

Discussion of the natural history post did not 
distract the Forum from concentrating on biological 
recording and museum collections at its third and 
subsequent meetings. Both had been specifically 
mentioned in the Proposals circulated before the 


92 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


inaugural meeting and subsequently became a 
feature of the Forum’s constitution as two of the 
five methods by which it would operate. The clear 
need for early resolution of both matters was the 
reason why they had formed such a major feature 
of the inaugural meeting. 

A certain amount of recording was already being 
done in the county by individuals and societies, but 
it was not systematic and the information was not 
available in a form which could be used by the 
bodies which most needed it. These included not 
only the NCC and the WTNC, but also the County 
Council and District Councils, particularly in 
connection with planning considerations. There had 
been some previous attempts at setting up a 
standardised recording system but these had failed, 
leading Dr Frank Perring, Director of the National 
Biological Records Centre at the Institute of 
Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire, 
to approach Dick Sandell, voluntary librarian at 
WANHS, with a view to establishing a county 
records office in the museum at Devizes, like that 
being set up in Hampshire. 

It was suggested that Perring be invited to address 
the Forum to explain the proposals in more detail, 
which he did at the third meeting on 24 February 
1975 at Urchfont. Ian Evans of Leicestershire 
Museums, who was already running a county centre, 
was also invited to speak. Given the involvement of 
so many individuals and organisations, not just in 
recording but also in the use of the resulting data, it 
was hardly surprising that the meeting attracted no 
fewer than forty-three participants. Such a large 
number of interested parties required careful co- 
ordination and liaison, so that the Forum was in a 
strong position to play a crucial role. 

Following agreement at the meeting that a 
County Records Centre should be set up, a sub- 
committee of the Forum was established to assist 
Dick Sandell to run it. Interestingly, Newell had 
written to Price as early as 19 February 1974 on 
this subject: ‘In lieu of the Natural History 
appointment Dick Sandell will, I think, be prepared 
to give some time to getting the Records Centre off 
the ground with the help of a small committee.’ In 
practice, the committee assumed management 
responsibility for both the post and the development 
of the Centre until WANHS later took over. Indeed, 
it had already met on 3 October 1974 (when Sandell 
was not present) and agreed that its first priority 
should probably be a land use and habitat survey, 
and that one of its first actions should be to organise 
a meeting of all the recorders. 


When, finally, in 1977 four appointments were 
made under the Government’s Job Creation 
Programme for a period of thirty-five weeks to assist 
with establishing the BRC, three were employed 
by the County Library and Museum Service and 
one by WANHS. The County Council employees 
were accommodated in Wyndhams (part of the 
rental being paid out of Forum funds) and 
concentrated on sites, whereas Chris Bindon, who 
was employed by WANHS, worked in the Museum 
on species. Given that the Council team was 
supervised by Stewart Lane, the NCC’s new 
Assistant Regional Officer, whose office was next 
door, this arrangement appears to have worked well. 
Having Peter Newbery, the WINC Field Officer, 
close by too, must have been an additional 
advantage. 

Following the end of the Job Creation Project, 
work on developing the Centre switched to the 
Museum and was carried on by Jeanne Rayment 
until 1979, and Susan Cross from 1981. It was at 
this time that the Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project 
was started (see below) which would quickly take 
up a large part of the nascent Centre’s work. Claire 
Appleby, the first full-time Biological Recorder, was 
appointed in 1985 after the County Council agreed 
to grant-aid the post, and she was replaced by Sally 
Scott-White, the present incumbent, in 1989. 
Throughout, the Forum continued to be much 
involved, and discussion of the work of the Centre 
was a more or less constant feature of its meetings. 
On 9 December 1993, county recorders were 
invited to attend the Forum’s meeting to discuss 
the future of biological recording. This resulted in 
the first meeting of county recorders, convened by 
the Forum, on 8 February 1995. Two meetings were 
subsequently held each year and will continue in 
the future under the auspices of the WW’T, a lasting 
legacy of the work of the Forum. 

The third important method the Forum had 
enshrined in its constitution was that of Museum 
collections, which Alison Maddock’s report, already 
mentioned, had highlighted as being in a dire state. 
Clearly the need was for proper management by a 
professional curator, but it would be seven years 
before Susan Cross’s appointment, and, in the 
meantime, the Forum found itself unable to sit back 
and do nothing. A problem in regard to Salisbury 
Museum’s collection of stuffed birds, animals and 
fish resulted in many of them ending up in 
Wyndhams. This must have been a considerable 
inconvenience for the Community Council, and it 
was no doubt pleased when Newell gained approval 


THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 93 


from the Salisbury authorities to loan the collections 
to suitable educational institutions such as 
Oxenwood Field Studies Centre and Lackham 
College of Agriculture. Meeting the needs of 
potential users had been one of the Forum’s aims 
with regard to collections, and this arrangement 
clearly fulfilled it. 

A fourth method, written into the constitution 
but not incorporated in the original Proposals, 
concerned the promotion of ‘conferences, courses, 
etc.’ One might have thought that the Forum had 
enough on its hands during its very active first three 
years, but it added considerably to this burden by 
organising a national Wetlands Symposium between 
3-5 September 1976 at Lackham College. 

Following the success of European 
Conservation Year in 1970, the Council of Europe 
declared 1976 to be European Wetlands Year. 
Participating countries were encouraged to develop 
regional programmes, which, in the UK, were 
organised under the umbrella of the NCC. The 
Forum’s involvement was stimulated not simply by 
this initiative, but also by the need to survey the 
wildlife potential of inland waters given the recent 
establishment of the new Water Authorities. 
Additionally, concern was being expressed that 
there was a need for local natural history societies 
to co-ordinate their activities in regard to the 
Authorities. 

The symposium, which was organised by a sub- 
committee consisting of Price (Chairman), Gillam, 
Horton, Newbery, Donald Tucker, Ted Culling and 
Newell, published a Report after the event which 
makes clear that it regarded its task as not simply 
to focus attention on wetlands and their 
conservation, but also to initiate the local survey. 
The latter was regarded as an essential basis for 
assessing local nature conservation priorities, and 
as an important tool in the working up of 
management proposals for the county’s major 
wetlands. 

The complex programme involving visits to 
sites, as well as exhibitions, lectures, group exercises 
and discussions under the Chairmanship of Dr 
Michael Gane, national Director of the NCC, was 
regarded as being a great success. Fourteen years 
later, in 1992, the Forum, then under the 
Chairmanship of Leslie Bond, organised another, 
less ambitious, Wetlands Symposium under the title 
Water for Wildlife -The Chalkland Sponge. It was 
chaired by Alan Swindall, Vice Chairman of the 
Wessex Regional Advisory Committee of the 
National Rivers Authority, and included a visit to 


the Cotswold Water Park as well as a full series of 
lectures and discussions led by many well-known 
authorities. Bond, a Major in the army, represented 
the Ministry of Defence, which had been active in 
setting up a number of Conservation Groups on 
their large estates in the county, some of which were 
represented individually on the Forum. 

One of the subjects discussed at the second 
Wetlands Symposium was landfill as a potential for 
long-term pollution of streams and aquifers. This 
was the second time the Forum had encountered 
the problem of waste disposal, the first being as 
early as 1975 when the County Council issued a 
new policy statement on tipping and appointed an 
officer with special responsibility for seeking out 
new sites. Horton, speaking for the NCC, believed 
that he was receiving copies of all planning 
applications related to potential tipping sites, but 
not early enough to take action if problems arose. 
In the case of the ironstone exposure at Westbury, 
an SSSI, for example, this had led to its complete 
in-filling in spite of NCC and District Council 
opposition. 

Marion Browne, in particular, was angered by 
this situation and at a Forum meeting on 8 October 
agreed to chair a working party to make 
recommendations to try to ensure that important 
habitats were not threatened and that a long-term 
programme of limiting waste generation and re- 
using waste materials was drawn up. Lesley Balfe, 
Ron Barron and Patrick Dillon were also members. 
Representatives from the Council for the Protection 
of Rural England, the Salisbury Natural History 
Society, and the County Council Education 
Department were invited but did not attend. The 
working party held two meetings (28 October and 
9 December 1975) and did extensive research. Its 
findings were that a great deal was being done 
nationally, but that this had had little impact in 
Wiltshire. 

Agricultural practices and their effect on the 
environment were a constant source of concern 
throughout most of the Forum’s existence. Its first 
direct involvement came following publication of 
the NCC’s report Nature Conservation and 
Agriculture which was the first official attempt to 
define nature conservation as a legitimate land use 
of equal importance to agriculture, forestry, etc. 
During the discussion of the report on 18 July 1977, 
which also took into account the new Nature 
Conservation Review, it was noted that an 
important basis for defining policy had been 
established in that nationally important sites which 


94 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


should be conserved had been identified, but 
disappointment was expressed that the legislative 
basis for SSSIs had not been strengthened. That 
agricultural changes were not subject to planning 
or any other form of control was also noted as a 
matter of great concern. It was agreed that Newell 
should write to the county’s MPs making clear the 
Forum’s support for a national land use strategy 
and requesting their help in pushing for it to be 
implemented. In this respect Wiltshire was fortunate 
in that one MP, Charles Morrison, was not only a 
member of the All Party Conservation Committee 
in the House of Commons, but also Chairman of 
the Council of the British Trust for Conservation 
Volunteers. But, whilst all replied in support, it was 
the case then, as it is today, that conservation has 
little political clout. 

A more successful initiative concerned the 
setting up of the Wiltshire Farming and Wildlife 
Advisory Group (FWAG), the inaugural meeting 
of which was held at Lackham on 29 November 
1977. The Forum had been actively involved with 
the arrangements and was disappointed that, 
although it was agreed to set up a local branch, the 
response had not been very enthusiastic, and no 
decisions had been reached either about the 
secretariat or the financial arrangements. On 9 Dec 
1977 Newell wrote to Price about ‘our various 
conversations about putting some dynamism into 
the FWAG committee, and expressed the hope that 
the WTNC might establish a new post to 
concentrate on farming and wildlife using some of 
their ‘enormous resources.’ Subsequently the 
WTNC did become involved as a direct result of 
which enthusiasm increased, so that by the time of 
a meeting at Lackham on 23 January 1981, 121 
people attended. The Forum had _ two 
representatives on the FWAG Committee (initially 
Gillam and Balfe), and the Committee a single 
representative on the Forum. 

The 1974 Proposals laid stress on the need to 
work with schools to develop natural history 
projects in conjunction with local societies and the 
Wiltshire Association for Environmental Education, 
and on the additional need to establish basic training 
courses in various aspects of natural history, 
particularly to increase the number of trained field 
workers. Although not embodied in its entirety in 
the constitution, the courses element did survive 
and, in November 1974, a four page list of functions 
/activities organised by members of the Forum was 
printed for circulation. At the same time a note was 
also produced detailing aspects of natural history 


which were not included in these courses and listing 
possible tutors (twenty-seven) to teach ornithology, 
botany, zoology and general natural history. 

To lead the way the Forum organised a one- 
day course at Oxenwood Field Studies Centre on 
13 July 1975 under the banner Want to be a Field 
Naturalist? It was attended by almost forty people 
who were, for the most part, not members of local 
natural history societies, and was followed by a 
second event on 6 June 1976. This was arranged in 
conjunction with the University of Bristol and was 
titled Scientific Fieldwork, a Layman’s Introduction 
to Ecology. But these initiatives do not appear to 
have been considered sufficiently successful to make 
them worth repeating and instead, the Forum 
concentrated its efforts on the production of 
detailed lists of courses related to natural history 
run by others, like that issued in April 1975. 
Subsequently, programmes of related activities were 
added, but these were dropped in April 1977, and 
by 1980 the production of courses lists appears to 
have been abandoned altogether. 

John Price resigned as Chairman of the Forum 
at the meeting on 16 May 1978 having served for 
four years, double the time originally proposed, and 
Peter Newell vacated the post of Secretary on 28 
April 1981, following his promotion to the 
Directorship of the Community Council itself. In 
writing to Price to say how much he had enjoyed 
working with him, Newell praised his ‘gift for 
chairing meetings which makes the job of secretary 
so much easier and more pleasant.’ Diana Farrow, 
Newell’s replacement, took over in a temporary 
capacity, but by May 1982, following the 
appointment of Susan Cross as Curator, the 
Community Council, now Community First, had 
ceased to be represented at Forum meetings. Soon 
afterwards the title Countryside Liaison Officer and 
all mention of the Forum were dropped from its 
annual reports. From the Council’s point of view, 
it could by then look back to what had been 
achieved and congratulate itself on its success. 

With the departure of Price and Newell, the 
Forum lost two of its most dynamic and hard- 
working officers and this would soon be noticeable 
in the reduced workload which it took upon itself. 
One major project, however, remained to be carried 
out which, in the eyes of many, was its greatest 
achievement. 

At the meeting on 3 November 1981 Beatrice 
Gillam pointed out that uncoordinated botanical 
recording was being carried out by members of 
several natural history societies and by independent 


THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 » 195 


Members of the Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project on the steps of Lackham College, March 1991. Reproduced from The 


Wiltshire Flora by permission of the Wiltshire Natural History Forum. 


individuals and that perhaps a botanical project 
should be started in the county to bring the 
recorders and their records together. This proposal 
was quickly supported by Stewart Lane, the 
Chairman, who referred to the many changes that 
had occurred in the countryside since the 
publication of Donald Grose’s The Flora of 
Wiltshire (1957), and to the fact that other counties 
had allowed twenty years for the production of a 
new flora. Nigel McCarter, conservation officer of 
the WTNC in succession to Newbery, added his 
support and suggested that the records should be 
computerised. He hoped that the County Council 
computer might have a ten-year programme for 
biological records included in the next review of its 
workload. Thus, the seeds were sown for what would 
shortly be called the Flora Mapping Project, the 
initiative which would eventually lead to the 
publication, by the Forum, of The Wiltshire Flora 
(1993). 

Following the November meeting McCarter 
produced a paper on 21 December 1981 
(misleadingly titled Biological Recording) in which 
he set out many of the key points which would later 
be adopted. In particular he pointed to the potential 
reservoir of volunteer helpers in the county — 250 
were listed in the Supplement to Grose’s volume — 
and to the work done in Shropshire based on ten 
kilometre squares for common plants, with smaller 
divisions for rarer ones. He also pointed to the 
system of bird recording in which one organiser 


was appointed for each square to manage the 
recorders. With regard to time scales, he 
recommended a pilot year in 1982, when road 
verges would be recorded, to test the viability of 
such a project with regard to the ability and interest 
of potential recorders, followed in 1983 by the 10km 
square project which should aim at completion by 
1990: ‘Although this is tight, a visible end point is 
necessary to maintain the enthusiasm of volunteers’. 
And to provide further encouragement he 
recommended the holding of an annual meeting, 
together with evening classes and surgeries. 

All of these points were subsequently approved 
at the meeting on 19 January 1982 and 
arrangements for the pilot survey were begun. Ann 
Hutchison and Dave Green, the Botanical Society 
of the British Isles’ (BSBI) recorders for the south 
and north of the county, agreed to provide lists of 
the rare species; Culling, vice-principal of Lackham, 
offered the College for the annual meeting; and 
McCarter (now Chairman) offered to write to 
Forum members explaining the project and asking 
for help. In addition it was agreed that the WCC 
should be approached to provide record cards. It 
was also noted that a churchyard survey was to be 
carried out by the BSBI in 1982 which would 
provide useful records . 

A steering group was set up to run the project 
under the chairmanship of Culling. The story of 
how it was organised and developed is told in detail 
by Joy Newton in the Flora itself. How offers of 


96 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


help poured in so quickly that by the time of the 
first meeting at Lackham on 22nd September 1983 
sixty enthusiasts were present — a number which 
eventually rose to 281; how, by the end of 1991, all 
948 tetrads in the county had been covered, except 
for those in two danger areas on Ministry of Defence 
land on Salisbury Plain; and how Sally Scott-White 
and her team in the BRC coped with the 
computerisation of the thousands of records. What 
is not revealed there was the ingenious method of 
funding the publication by asking all those taking 
part to make a loan towards the costs which was 
eventually repaid from the proceeds of sales. These 
arrangements were handled by John Rayner, who 
had taken on the job of Honorary Treasurer to the 
Forum from Chris Clark in 1987, and acted as 
Chairman of the Flora’s Publication Working Party. 
Subsequently the Forum would go on to publish 
Michael Fuller’s The Lepidoptera of Wiltshire 
(1995), which, like the The Wiltshire Flora, was 
edited by Beatrice Gillam (by now awarded the 
MBE for her services to natural history in the 
county), and to provide funds towards other 
publications such as Stephen Palmer’s The 
Microlepidoptera of Wiltshire (2001) and 
Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity, (1997-) already 
mentioned. 

Twenty-four people representing twelve 
organisations had attended the inaugural meeting 
of the Forum in May 1974. By April 1989 
membership had increased to thirty-one 
organisations but only seventeen people 
(representing eleven organisations) attended. Later, 
attendance dropped further, until, by the time of 
the Extraordinary Annual General Meeting called 
to discuss the Forum’s closure on 8 August 2002, 
only eight people were present. Falling attendance 
and reduced receipts from affiliated members were 
a constant source of debate at many of the meetings 
after 1980, and, since the success of the Forum 
depended on the use made of it by the members, 
inevitably sparked debate about its future. 

The most important of these debates took place 
at a meeting on 27 April 1989 following receipt of 
a detailed paper prepared by Edward Elliott, a 
representative of the British Lichen Society, who 
was also much involved with WANHS. After noting 
the links between the Society and the Forum, and 
that both were falling short of achieving their 
objectives, Elliott made several practical proposals 
for new initiatives. These included staging an annual 
conference with accompanying events and 
exhibitions; publishing an annual Wiltshire Natural 


History Bulletin, and setting up various standing 
and special committees. Some of these actions, he 
recommended, should be carried out in conjunction 
with WANHS. 

Elliott’s ideas were sensible and achievable but 
depended on the willingness and enthusiasm of 
members to carry them out. As this was not 
available nothing came of them. The days of a 
salaried professional such as Newell, able to put in 
the time and effort to manage the affairs of the 
Forum, were long gone. But there were other 
reasons too. The Natural History Section of 
WANHS, many of whose members had been 
behind the setting up of the Forum, had rejoined 
the parent body in 1982. Natural history elsewhere 
was fragmenting in response to greater 
professionalism thus operating in opposition to 
attempts to bring about unity. Specialist 
organisations such as the Wiltshire Ornithological 
Society (founded 1974) and the Wiltshire Botanical 
Society (founded 1992) placed new, very 
compelling demands on the time of their members. 
The waves of official paperwork emanating from 
governmental agencies and County and District 
Councils increased throughout the period, as did 
management bureaucracy. The language was often 
technical and the concepts complex, making them 
difficult for the dedicated volunteers, who continued 
to constitute a large part of the Forum’s 
membership, to comprehend and act upon. 
Additionally, after establishing its methods, the 
Forum was increasingly led, not by its own agenda, 
but by those of the individuals and organisations 
whose programmes and initiatives landed 
increasingly heavily on its table. Rural Strategies, 
Local Plans, Enterprise Proposals, and every other 
sort of report, forced debates and occasionally 
precipitated action which often turned out to have 
been in response to faits accomplis. And the process 
was self-defeating, for the fewer the members who 
attended the Forum, the less reason there was for 
others to take notice of its activities. 

It was, perhaps, inevitable therefore that at the 
Extraordinary General Meeting on 8 August 2002, 
after numerous discussions both in and out of 
meetings, the few remaining members of the Forum 
should have decided that enough was enough, and 
voted unanimously in favour of its closure. 
Fortunately, the same meeting also approved 
unanimously the transfer of its remaining funds to 
a new body, to be called The Wiltshire Natural 
History Publications Trust. Thus, the Forum will 
not simply continue to benefit the county through 


THE WILTSHIRE NATURAL HISTORY FORUM 1974-2002 97 


its past achievements but will, in the future, assist 
by making grants available for new publications. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

My greatest debts of gratitude are undoubtedly to 
Beatrice Gillam and Peter Newell who scrupulously 
read through my manuscript and made numerous 
suggestions for improvements. To Carol Drew at 
Community First I am grateful for permission to 
look at their annual reports and to the staff at 
Salisbury Reference Library I am very grateful for 
their advice and help in locating literature. 


Appendix 1 
List of Chairmen of the Wiltshire 
Natural History Forum 


(Dates are those of the first and last meetings attended). 
John Price 6 May 1974 — 16 May1978 
Stewart Lane 19 Sep 1978 — 3 Nov 1981 
Nigel McCarter 19 Jan 1982 - 20 Jul 1983 

Ted Culling 8 Feb 1984 - 29 Oct 1987 
Jane Brookhouse 8 Feb 1988 - 13 Oct 1988 
Michael Fuller 16 Feb 1989 - 25 Oct 1990 


Major Leslie Bond 20 Feb 1991 - 20 May 1992 
Prof. Humphrey Kay 20 Aug 1992 - 30 Nov 1994 
Richard Last 8 Feb 1995 — 1997 
Nicholas Wynn 1997 — 6 May 2002 


Dr Michael Darby 8 Aug 2002 


Appendix 2 
List of Members of the Wiltshire 
Natural History Forum 1974-2002 


Army Bird Watching Society 

Botanical Society of the British Isles 

Box Archaeological and Natural History Society 
British Butterfly Conservation Society 

British Deer Society 

British Lichen Society 

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers 
British Trust for Ornithology 

British Waterways 


Butterfly Conservation. Wiltshire Branch 
Community Council for Wiltshire 

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group 

Forestry Commission 

Great Western Community Forest 

Imber Conservation Group 

Lackham College of Agriculture 

Mammal Society 

Marlborough College Natural History Society 
Ministry of Defence Conservation Group 
Oxenwood Field Studies Centre 

Nature Conservancy Council 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

Salisbury and District Natural History Society 
Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum 

Salisbury Plain Training Area Conservation Groups 
Somerset Trust for Nature Conservation 

Swindon and District Natural History Society 
Swindon Museum 

Tisbury Natural History Society 

Westbury Naturalists Society 

Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records Centre 
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 
Wiltshire Association for Environmental Education 
Wiltshire Bat Group 

Wiltshire Constabulary 

Wiltshire County Council Education Department 
Wiltshire County Council Library and Museum Services 
Wiltshire County Council Planning and Highways 
Wiltshire Education Authority 

Wiltshire Museums Council 

Wiltshire Ornithological Society 

Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation 

Wiltshire Wildlife Conservation Volunteers 
Wiltshire Wildlife Trust 

Woodland Heritage Museum 

Woodland Trust 

Workers Educational Association 


Note 

This article is based on the records of the Forum in the 
Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, Trowbridge. It has 
been written as a companion piece to Darby, M. “‘WANHS 
and Natural History’ in the Society’s forthcoming 150th 
anniversary volume. 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 98-110 


‘False and Unjust Slanders’: 
The Duchess of Beaufort and her Daughter 
Quarrel over the Seymour Estate 


Molly McClain 


In 1690 a series of emotionally charged letters passed between Mary, first duchess of Beaufort, and her 
daughter Elizabeth, countess of Ailesbury, over a proposed Act of Parliament which would permit the 
latter’s husband to make reversionary leases on the former Seymour estates in Wiltshire and Somerset. The 
letters highlight the difficulties which inheritances and settlements could cause in aristocratic families, 
particularly when great sums of money were involved. They also illustrate the difference between a younger 
generation, seeking to free themselves from the constraints of the newly developed strict settlement, and an 
older generation that sought, above all, to preserve land from being sold. 


Mothers and daughters frequently quarrel, 
particularly when an inheritance (or a son-in-law) 
is concerned. The letters which passed between the 
first Duchess of Beaufort, and her daughter 
Elizabeth, countess of Ailesbury, in 1690 provide 
evidence of a spectacular row. Elizabeth accused 
her mother and stepfather of having stolen money 
from her and her brother, the late Duke of Somerset. 
She believed that they were still trying to control 
her estate. The duchess, meanwhile, thought her 
daughter ‘the most ungrateful creature in the world 
both to my lord and me.’ She claimed that they 
had brought her from nothing to a fortune, 
‘modestly speaking, of above a hundred thousand 
pound’ and yet they had nothing from her but 
‘perpetual trouble and some charge.’ To her 
daughter she wrote, ‘Hell itself is hardly capable of 
more malice or unnaturalness than you in this have 
showed to me’ (W [iltshire and] S [windon] R[ecord] 
O[ffice] 1300/717, 728). 

These letters, available in the Wiltshire & 
Swindon Record Office, were part of a private family 
quarrel which was brought into the public arena 
when Thomas Bruce, second earl of Ailesbury 
(1656-1741), presented a bill before the Houses of 


Parliament which would allow him to make 
reversionary leases on his property in order to pay 
off his debts. His bill was opposed by his mother- 
in-law, Mary Somerset, duchess of Beaufort (1630- 
1715), on the grounds that his actions would 
prejudice the future financial well-being of her 
daughter and her grandchildren. Her daughter, 
however, believed that her mother and stepfather 
simply wanted to retain power over the estate. At 
stake in this dispute was money, pride and 
autonomy, a dangerous combination. 

This family quarrel provides a window into the 
social history of the aristocracy. It shows the extent 
to which personal relationships were affected by 
property and inheritance. It also illustrates the 
difference between a younger generation, seeking 
to free themselves from the constraints of the newly 
developed strict settlement, and an older generation 
that sought, above all, to preserve land from being 
sold. The Earl and Countess of Ailesbury came of 
age after the Restoration when the return of a stable 
political order encouraged financial speculation and 
a burgeoning commercial marketplace. The Duke 
and Duchess of Beaufort, meanwhile, came to 
maturity during the tumultuous period of the 


History Department, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110-2492, USA 


‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 99 


English civil wars. They witnessed the confiscation 
of too many noble estates to trust in the security of 
the law. As the duchess wrote: 


T have lived to see a great many revolutions in the 
public and God only knows what more may be, and 
should a time come that Acts of Parliament should 
be reversed ... [mean those that concern my daughter 
Ailesbury . . . what condition will my daughter be in 
when this jointure, which is not a great one, shall be 
sold or at least worth little by this new way of stating 
leases?’ (B[adminton] M[uniments] FmF 1/5/9) 


As aresult, they adopted a cautious attitude towards 
the future, securing their lands and properties 
against the possibility of change. 

The dispute over the management of the 
Seymour properties dated back to the 1650s when 
Mary, then Lady Beauchamp, was a young royalist 
widow with little money and no home of her own. 
Her husband, Henry Lord Beauchamp, had died 
in 1654 after having been imprisoned in the Tower 
of London. She and her two children, William and 
Elizabeth, lived part of the year in Hertfordshire 
with her mother, Lady Capel, and part of the year 
in London with her mother-in-law, Frances, 
marchioness of Hertford. Despite the fact that she 
had an annuity of £1,600, she had been forced to 
take on some of her late husband’s debts. As a result, 
she ‘had not a bed to lie upon or a pair of sheets for 
myself and children or a house and can safely say 
not twenty shillings in my pocket’ (WSRO 1300/ 
717). Desperately unhappy, she sought to escape 
widowhood through marriage to Henry Lord 
Herbert (after 1682 duke of Beaufort), the heir of 
Edward, marquis of Worcester, a Catholic royalist 
with a substantial estate in South Wales. Lord 
Herbert owned a decaying Elizabethan manor 
house, Badminton, located on the edge of the 
Cotswolds in Gloucestershire. He provided her a 
home while she, in return, offered him an interest 
in managing the vast estate which her son would 
inherit on the death of his grandfather, William 
Seymour, first earl of Hertford and, after 1660, 
second duke of Somerset. 

Mary’s marriage marked the beginning of a 
decade-long legal battle with her mother-in-law who 
was convinced that the fortune-hunting Lord 
Herbert aimed to deprive her grandson of his estate. 
On the death of her husband in October 1660, she 
demanded that the young boy came to live with 
her, even though she realized that she could not act 
as his legal guardian after Charles II had confirmed 
the Act abolishing the Court of Wards. Her 


realization of this fact put her ‘in a rage,’ according 
to an observer. Although Mary allowed her son to 
visit his grandmother she refused to turn over the 
administration of the estate. The Dowager Duchess 
of Somerset responded with a lawsuit to keep ‘the 
Lord Herbert and his Lady restrained from 
intermeddling in the premises.’ She also tried to 
ensure that any income over and above the annuities 
would be used to pay her late husband’s debts, 
which exceeded £20,000, even though much of his 
property had already been vested in a trust for this 
purpose (WSRO 1300/710; BM FmF 4/1/1). 

The dispute was arbitrated by Sir Orlando 
Bridgeman, Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer 
(1660) and Chief Justice of the Court of Common 
Pleas (1660-1667). His goal was to keep the estate 
from being broken into pieces and sold to pay off 
debts. To this end, he endeavored to get an Act of 
Parliament which would ‘join the whole estate of 
the old duke together and enable trustees to pay 
the debts out of the entailed estate as well as the 
trust.’ According to one contemporary, it ‘was the 
only way could be thought of to preserve the family. 
My Lord Bridgeman drew the Act himself.’ In the 
end, the Dowager Duchess of Somerset 
relinquished her control over her grandson’s 
properties. She agreed to release an estate at 
Symondsbury in Dorset ‘which is a very 
considerable one’ in return for jointure interest in 
the manors of Easton and Amesbury in Wiltshire. 
Mary wrote that it was the least she could do, given 
that her son had to part with ‘his houses and so 
good an estate’ (WSRO 1300/710) 

Mary, meanwhile, managed the estate and dealt 
with lawyers, bailiffs, estate agents, tenants and 
creditors on William’s behalf. Her husband later 
wrote that she had, ‘the entire management of her 
son, the Duke of Somerset, when alive, and his 
estate.’ When she collected rents or fines, she simply 
noted the amount in the same account book where 
she jotted down receipts from her husband’s 
properties. She estimated that in the ten years 
between 1660 and 1670, she had collected £44,792 
from his estates and disbursed £32,921 to pay off 
debts, annuities and expenses, including her own 
jointure payment of £1,600 p. a. She noted what 
she spent for the boy’s servants, livery, horses and 
hounds, trips to Newmarket, pistols and clothes. 
She also bought items on her daughter’s account, 
including coloured gloves, silk stockings, white 
shoes, petticoats, ‘a new fashion hood and scarf, 
eleven yards of gold and silver bone lace, lute strings, 
‘things for the pointwork, yards of French satin, 


100 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


dinner napkins, chocolate and wax books. It is hard 
to imagine a fifteen year-old girl needing such things 
but perhaps her mother enjoyed them as well. In 
1668 the latter had ordered servants to uproot elm 
trees from her son’s Wiltshire manors and cart them 
to Badminton, where they were to line the newly 
constructed avenues built around the estate (WSRO 
1300/703). 

William and Elizabeth spent the 1660s at 
Badminton with the growing Somerset family 
which included Charles, Henrietta, Mary and Anne. 
It must have been difficult for them to live in their 
stepfather’s house and to submit to his authority. 
William, for one, ‘often declared to his sister that 
he would remove to Tottenham the day after he 
should come of age and she to live with him for he 
could not stay longer where he then was for several 
reasons that were then evident.’ He made a point 
of travelling to London as often as he could. At 
eighteen, he was singled out at a meeting of the 
Royal Society as a ‘very pretty young man’ and his 
grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Somerset, 
had a difficult time keeping him from flirting with 
fashionable society. In July 1670, he complained to 
his mother that she ‘sent to see me as soon as I 
came (to town), and invited me to dine with her 
today where my Lord Clifford dined also (who I 
find is very much in her favour). She kept me 
prisoner all this day for she would not give me leave 
to make any visits till I had seen the king’ (WSRO 
1300/775; BM FmF 1/8/24). 

William contracted smallpox in late 1671 when 
he was twenty-one years old. He was quickly moved 
to the nearby manor of Amesbury in Wiltshire so 
that he did not infect the younger children. By 
December, however, it was apparent that he would 
die. He disposed of his personal property to his 
mother but his estate descended to his uncle Sir 
John Seymour (later the fourth duke of Somerset), 
on whom it was entailed. Ailesbury later claimed 
that there were good reasons why he gave his 
personal estate to his mother for, if it had been 
otherwise, ‘an account, as I take it, must have been 
made’ (WSRO 1300/775). 

As executrix for her late son’s estate, Mary drew 
up a list of his lands and his debts. In Wiltshire, he 
had estates in Amesbury, Great Bedwyn, Burbage, 
Chisenbury, Collingbourne Ducis, Collingbourne 
Kingston, Enford, Savernake Forest, Shalbourne 
Eastcourt, Shalbourne Westcourt, Shorncote and 
Stapleford. His demesne properties included 
Wolfhall Park, Collingbourne Wood, Bentley Woods, 
Savernake Coppice and Shalbourne Wood. In 


Somerset, he had estates in Castle Cary, Camely, 
Chillington, Godney, Hatch Beauchamp, IIminster, 
Meare, Norton Beauchamp, Pilton and Shepton 
Beauchamp. His rental income was an estimated 
£2,613 p. a. but charges on the estate stood at 
£4,255 p. a. She supposed that the balance: 


if extraordinary care and diligence be used, may be 
supplied by fines, heriots etc. . . . for my late lord 
duke made out of his revenue one year with another 
between £6 and 7,000 and there is not above £1,500 
a year deducted out of the whole for the duchess’s 
jointure, . . . so as it is hoped the remaining estate 
herein mentioned may yield (if leases be renewed) 


between £4 and £5,000 p. annum. 


Elizabeth, meanwhile, received nothing but a 
small annual income. At the time of her brother’s 
death, she was an ungainly seventeen year-old who 
had been afflicted with rickets as a child and forced 
to wear ‘rollers on her knees.’ Her closest remaining 
sibling was her eleven year-old half-brother Charles 
Lord Herbert, a ‘weak and sickly’ child, who was 
later described as a ‘little hump back’d lord.’ In the 
spring of 1672, she was sent to live with her 
grandmother in the expectation that the latter would 
leave her ‘a very considerable fortune’. When her 
grandmother died two years later, the bulk of her 
property was conveyed to her grandson by marriage, 
Thomas Thynne, for £12,000. Elizabeth received 
a small legacy and some valuable jewels including 
‘the best diamond ring that I used to wear.’ These 
were soon pawned. She also received a box of rarities 
given to the Dowager Duchess by Mrs. John Selden, 
a little carpet, portraits of her brother and her 
grandfather, several miniatures, silver plate, books 
and the ‘great rich bed and fittings formerly Queen 
Jane Seymour’s, a gift from Charles I (BM FmF 4/ 
1/4, FmF 1/2/27; WSRO 1300/814, 202). 

Her fortunes changed, however, when her uncle 
John, fourth duke of Somerset, suffered a fit of 
apoplexy in early 1675. Should he die, his title would 
descend to Francis, son of Charles Seymour, second 
baron Trowbridge. His properties, however, would 
go to Elizabeth as his heir at law because of an 
apparent ‘mistake’ in his will. Fortunately, Henry 
was acquainted with the duke’s lawyer and executor, 
George Johnson, who had been a judge under him 
at the Court of the Council in the Marches of Wales. 
Mary later described him as a person in whom her 
husband had an ‘interest.’ She wrote to him, asking 
for his help on Elizabeth’s behalf. The duke’s sisters 
Frances, countess of Southampton, and Lady Jane 
Clifford, were trying to get their brother to alter his 


‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 101 


will in their favour while others were attempting to 
‘persuade him to give his estate to my Lord 
Seymour.’ She told him that she knew the duke 
well enough to ‘fear persuasions will not do much 
with him, but I am told of some people about him 
that will, for their own profit, perhaps help her’ to 
his very considerable estate. She suggested, 
cautiously, that her daughter ‘may well allow them 
a share, if she may have a part with them,’ adding 
‘this is not a way that either she or I like, if it were 
possible to obtain her right without it.’ She asked 
Johnson to find out whether there had been any 
alteration to her prejudice and ‘whether you think 
I may do her any good by tying with these people.’ 
Johnson replied that he had heard nothing from 
the duke about altering his will. ‘I am, Madam, 
clearly of opinion if your daughter hath any part of 
his estate must be by my Lord’s ignorance in the 
law (as I formerly told you). I do also verily believe 
if this will stand that my Lady your daughter will 
have a very great, if not the greatest, part of his 
estate’ (HMC 15th Report 7, p. 176; WSRO 1300/ 
253, 778). 

A final fit of apoplexy rendered the duke non 
compos mentis and he died in April 1675. Johnson 
wrote to Henry to assure him of his stepdaughter’ 
strange inheritance. ‘I verily believe that my Lady 
will have the greatest part of his estate in point of 
value for that mere mistake that I did acquaint your 
Lordship of, when I saw you last, he not intending 
her one penny.’ In the end, she gained nearly all the 
properties that had formerly belonged to her brother 
with the exception of Amesbury, which was deeded 
to the duke’s lover, Eleanor Oldfield of New Sarum, 
Wiltshire. In a letter to her daughter written later, 
Mary explained that her husband had been 
instrumental in securing her fortune: 


The estate being entailed on your uncle John and at 
his death in his power to give to whom he pleased 
and he had been by some people (set on by your 
aunts) incensed against you and endeavoured to them, 
in so much that he intended all the estate that he did 
not give to Mrs. Oldfield, for them. It happened that 
my Lord had an interest in one Mr. Johnson, who 
was a judge under him at Ludlow and in Wales, this 
gentleman my Lord heard was chosen by my Lord 
John Duke of Somerset to make his will to him, 
therefore he applied himself in your behalf and by 
his means procured you the whole estate. 


Later, Henry and Mary prevailed with Elizabeth to 
give Johnson ‘some lives in-a small thing in return 
of his kindness by which you obtained the whole 


estate.’ It is unclear exactly what he received but 
Lord Bruce later wrote of a ‘present that was made 
him at Hippenscomb (co. Wiltshire) for his service 
relating to the will? (WSRO 1300/254, 717, 775). 

Henry also had the presence of mind to acquire 
Amesbury from Mrs. Oldfield. The estate, located 
eight miles north of Salisbury on the River Avon, 
was one of the few Seymour properties to include a 
manor house. In May 1675, Johnson told Henry 
that he had encountered Lord Colerain who: 


talked of seeing Mrs. Oldfield. I did, as well as I could, 
by the by, insinuate that he might advise her not to 
be hasty to part with Amesbury (if it should prove 
hers) unless it were to my Lady Elizabeth, and to be 
careful to do nothing that might displease your 
Lordship. 


After a brief negotiation, Henry convinced to her 
sell the property, which was liable to Mary’s annuity 
of £1,600, in return for his promise that the annuity 
‘should not molest her in the enjoyment of Wolfhall,’ 
another estate formerly enjoyed by the late duke. 
Henry made a good bargain, paying £3,583 for an 
estate that was worth at least £12,000. He later 
conveyed it to Elizabeth. The abbey mansion, built 
after 1660 on the site of a medieval nunnery, 
contained a garden with many fruit trees and a 
bowling green. It also included ‘a gentleman who 
was butler to his Grace, a very able man and 
sufficient to be butler and housekeeper for any noble 
person in England. He is a very solid man...and it 
is almost as great a wonder as Stonehenge to see 
him without the gates and also to see him drink 
any strong liquors, he is so temperate’ (WSRO 
1300/268; BM FmF 1/8/34; HMC, 15th Report 7, 
pl): 

Congratulations (and offers of marriage) began 
pouring in. Mary’s brother, Arthur, earl of Essex, 
wrote that he had heard of ‘the great fortune lately 
fallen to your daughter,’ Elizabeth. ‘It is, I confess, 
a most remarkable Providence that after so much 
endeavours used to ruin this young lady and make 
her fortune not only unsuitable to her birth but 
even to bring her to the brink of want she should 
have so large an establishment descend to her’ (BM 
FmF 1/7/27). 

Henry hoped to persuade Elizabeth to marry 
Francis, fifth duke of Somerset (d. 1678). In so 
doing, he wished to help to restore her estate “by 
matching to him, that has the title, and whom the 
law makes the head of it.’ However, he explained to 
Essex, ‘you cannot imagine the averseness she has 
to it, and you know she is of an age, not only of 


102 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


conceit and dissent, but to be sui juris, so that there 
is nothing to be done, but with her approbation.’ 
Her mother proposed several others including her 
own son, Charles (now marquis of Worcester) and 
Thomas Bruce, son of Robert, first earl of Ailesbury, 
‘the latter of which she seems most inclined to.’ 
Thomas was only nineteen (two years younger than 
Elizabeth) so there was no rush to make a match. 
In fact, he was not permitted to ask for her hand 
until lawyers had negotiated the marriage 
settlement. In the meantime Henry began to have 
doubts. He wrote to his wife in April 1676: 


I long to hear what your daughter says to my Lord 
Ailesbury’s declaration concerning Amesbury and 
London, I do really doubt that match as the fortunes 
stand cannot be a convenient one, and whither it be 
not best handsomely to break off, with her consent . 

. and soon after bring in one of the other two, 
especially that of the D[uke of Somerset] (which I 
am most inclined to and so I believe is the world 
generally) I leave to you (that knew all circumstances 
and her best) to judge (BL Stowe MS 208, f. 461; 
BM FmF 1/2/35). 


News of the forthcoming marriage concerned 
those who held annuities charged on the Seymour 
estates. Frances, countess of Southampton, heard 
it rumoured that Henry planned to advance 
£26,000 as her portion, in return for ‘all the fair 
estate which she is either to expect or is now 
possessed of’, and wrote to demand the facts. She 
was assured that the rumour was unfounded but 
the question of the annuities remained a sticky one. 
Sir Leoline Jenkins thought that since Elizabeth’s 
property came to her not by her own acquisition 
but by ‘descent as well as by device,’ perhaps she 
should give some regard to her aunts in making up 
her marriage settlement. The Earl of Essex, 
meanwhile, told his sister that the annuities were 
now in arrears £9,750 and that they were valued at 
six years’ purchase for £27,000. In the end, he 
wrote, they ‘will devour the whole so as ‘tis 
conceived much for your daughter’s profit to buy 
them in’ (Bodleian Library, Carte 130, f. 284; 
WSRO 1300/774, 777). 

In August 1676, a marriage settlement was 
drawn up. In it, Elizabeth granted to the trustees, 
the Earl of Essex and Sir Henry Capel, the manors 
and advowsons of Amesbury and several other 
properties in Hampshire, Middlesex, Wiltshire, 
Pembrokeshire and Brecknockshire, the portion of 
£06,000 given to her by her grandfather, and £3,000 
expended by Elizabeth in order to pay several debts 


and legacies of the late Duke of Somerset for which 
she was to be reimbursed out of the manors which 
he devised to his executors for ten years in trust for 
Elizabeth until her marriage. She was to have £300 
p. a. for her sole use while her mother was to 
continue to receive her annuity of £1,600. In 
addition, trustees were permitted to dispose of the 
property subject to the annuities of Frances, 
countess of Southampton, Lady Jane Clifford and 
Sir Heneage Finch according to the will of the late 
Duke of Somerset. 

In the event that Lord Bruce died before his 
wife, Elizabeth was assured of £1,500 p. a. for life 
out of the Ailesbury property. The earl, meanwhile, 
was assured of the £6,000 marriage portion as well 
as the £3,000 disbursed to pay debts. If the marriage 
took place and Lord Bruce conveyed the promised 
manors and lands, then the trustees would settle 
the manors and capital of Amesbury and several 
other properties to the use of Elizabeth for life 
without impeachment of waste, then to trustees for 
the use of Lord Bruce for life so long as he had 
issue by her, then to their first, second, third and 
other sons, and heirs in order of seniority, then to 
her daughters and heirs. If they had no surviving 
children, the manor of Amesbury and the property 
there, with moiety of all other property in Wiltshire, 
Somerset and Berkshire would go to trustees for 
the use of Charles Somerset, Lord Herbert, son 
and heir of the Marquis of Worcester and his heirs. 
The other moiety would go to Elizabeth’s heirs of 
the body (i.e. issue of a second marriage). If she 
had no children, then the trustees were to dispose 
of the property as directed by Elizabeth and her 
mother, Mary, marchioness of Worcester, failing 
that, by joint direction by the marchioness alone. 
In spite of the marriage, Ailesbury and Lord Bruce 
had no power to act in connection with property 
except under agreement (WSRO 1300/675). 

One unusual provision in this contract was that 
Elizabeth’s half-brother, Charles, was to receive the 
manor of Amesbury and half of her property in the 
event that she died without heirs. The lawyers had 
advised that an individual had to be named to the 
entail. Elizabeth refused to choose the fifth Duke 
of Somerset or one of her aunts. Instead, she agreed 
to her mother’s suggestion that she name Charles. 
Elizabeth later claimed that her stepfather had 
engineered this in an effort to get hold of her estate. 
‘I do not accuse my brother Worcester of having 
any hand in this settlhement for I remember very 
well that he was in France when it was made,’ she 
wrote, ‘for, if he had been at Badminton, then I 


‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 103 


believe it never had been done... for he is a man of 
honour and conscience and, I am sure, desires 
nobody’s estate but his own.’ Mary, however, 
believed these charges to be ridiculous for the 
settlement could be of no advantage to her husband. 
She reminded Elizabeth ‘how readily you consented 
and how well pleased you were with that, whether 
for his near relation or a gratitude to a family .. . or 
out of a particular affection to him (for I must 
observe to you that I never saw so much dearness 
between two relations of whole blood, as there was 
then between you two ...)’ (SRO 1300/716, 717). 

Elizabeth and Thomas Lord Bruce were happily 
married a year later and living at Houghton House, 
Ampthill in Bedfordshire. She was twenty-three 
years of age to his twenty-one. Colonel Edward 
Cooke reported: 


Iam sure she is marvellous fond of her husband (who 
justly pays her in the same coin) to that degree that I 
had some difficulty to convince her ladyship into a 
consent for his going to London. . . by her goodwill, 
he should never be out of her sight, and by his, he 
never would be . . . I confess I do not well see how 
her Ladyship should become unhappy unless she 
makes herself so, or will suffer to be made so. 


However, he did take the liberty of pointing out a 

potential problem to her mother. He had noticed 
how Elizabeth’s ‘great bellied’ maid, Mrs Mary 
Kemish, had ‘insinuated herself into her Lady’s 
favour.’ She insisted that ‘nothing is fine enough 
for her to wear, which keeps her Lady penniless, 
nor good enough for her to devour, which keeps a 
very chargeable kitchen above stairs.’ He thought 
that ‘she will never leave undermining till she hath 
utterly engrossed her Lady to herself through to 
the loss of all her friends . .. husband and all.’ She 
even ‘uses to awe her Lady with threats of leaving 
her when the design to get anything.’ This was the 
first hint of the financial troubles that would plague 
the couple throughout their married life (WSRO 
1300/697). 

Shortly after their marriage, the Earl of 
Ailesbury and his son approached Henry about the 
possibility of their buying in Mary’s annuity of 
£1,600. Although the father behaved with his usual 
courtesy, the son acted very badly indeed. Henry 
later wrote to Mary: 


it is impossible for you to imagine how disrespectfully 
and insolently he talked, in so much that his father . 
. . was out of countenance with him and came to 
make an apology for it after he was gone out of town, 


blaming him extremely and seeming to wonder much 
at it. 


Still Ailesbury asked again how much she would 
take for her jointure. ‘I think your answer had best 
be this,’ he wrote, ‘that you are extremely unwilling 
to part with what you have... but that if you do 
part with it, it must be for land.’ When the earl 
returned a proposal listing the lands that he would 
give her the fee of for her jointure, she responded 
with a resounding ‘no.’ In a letter to the Lord, she 
wondered at his proposal ‘that I should accept of a 
manor of £86 a year old rent (Ilminster) in lieu of 
£1,000 a year the best secured of any annuity in 
England. I know very well the portion I brought to 
that family deserved as much as this. . . therefore I 
do wonder that anybody should expect (or clamour) 
if I do not give away my own .. . My Lord I have 
lived too long in the world to be frighted from an 
honest and prudent resolution by being threatened 
with talk’ (WSRO 1300/780; BM FmF 1/2/66.). 

Mary did not shy away from expressing her 
opinion even to the bad-tempered Lord Bruce. She 
wrote to him several times when Elizabeth became 
pregnant with her second child for she was very 
concerned about her daughter’s health, particularly 
as her first child had been stillborn. In August 1679 
she wrote to her son-in-law, ‘if my daughter’s child 
be turned as her last was, I very much fear the 
midwife’s skill.’ She feared that it would be difficult 
to save both her and the child unless the procedure 
was done ‘just at the time of the breaking of the 
water, therefore certainly she would be most safe 
in a man midwife’s hand till she hath had one child 
well’ for both skill and quickness were needed ‘lest 
fainting fits seize her.’ In the end, both mother and 
child survived and the latter was named Robert (d. 
1684) after his grandfather. Two years later, 
Elizabeth again gave birth successfully to another 
son named Charles. A daughter, Elizabeth, followed 
in 1689 (WSRO 1300/747). 

By 1680, Lord Bruce needed to settle his affairs 
in order to raise much-needed cash. He wanted to 
pay off the annuities on his wife’s estate, which cost 
him nearly £4,800 p. a., and he also had personal 
debts. He had taken two costly trips to France and 
Flanders in an attempt to find a remedy for a painful 
kidney stone. He had returned to England in time 
for the first general election of 1679, expecting his 
father’s influence as lord lieutenant of Bedfordshire 
to secure him a position in Parliament. To his 
surprise, he was heavily defeated by Hon. William 
Russell. Following this humiliation, he made use 


104 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


of the Seymour interest in Wiltshire to secure his 
election as member for Marlborough at the next 
two Parliaments (1679 and 1681). These, and 
subsequent elections, would cost him a considerable 
amount of money. He later claimed that he had 
spent £4,000 on behalf of himself and his 
candidates. He also wrote that his wife’s midwives 
and doctors had been ‘very chargeable’ while his 
household expenses may well have run to more than 
£400 p. a. Of course, he also gambled at dice, cards, 
billiards, bowls, whisk [whist] and shovel-board [a 
form of shove ha’penny]. His mother-in-law later 
accused him of losing vast sums in play; he claimed 
that gambling was the least of his problems (WSRO 
1300/801, 717, 894). 

Thomas had planned to lease some of his wife’s 
properties when he discovered that his marriage 
did not give him power to make leases in reversion. 
Since revenues of the manors consisted chiefly of 
old rents (fines for 21 years or 1, 2 or 3 lives having 
already been paid), he could not raise enough 
money to buy in annuities or pay debts and legacies. 
What he needed to be able to do was to make new 
leases on all of his properties so that he could pay a 
debt estimated at £22,000 to £23,000: 


I beg of your Ladyship to peruse this account. I am 
sure I am as exact as possible can be, as for the 
leaseholds, I will say no more but this that I am sure 
you thought you had given me power but since my 
solicitor at marriage was so negligent I am sure your 
Ladyship is too generous to take advantage and I am 
sure I am the only tenant in possession and for life 
that have not the power of granting leases (WSRO 
1300/797). 


He also continued to press Mary to accept some 
form of payment for her jointure. He made a 
number of visits to their London residence to 
discuss what she would accept. In 1683 she wrote 
to her husband, ‘I do not know what to do in Lord 
Bruce’s business. I beseech you help me in it.’ She 
knew that Henry would prefer her annuity of 
£1,000 to any amount of cash and so wondered 
whether she might: ‘honourably break off with him 
{Lord Bruce] ...I should much rather break with 
him than let him have all these great advantages to 
enrich his servants. I know his condition will be 
very sad but he may thank himself.’ Her only fear 
was that her daughter and son-in-law would make 
‘a horrible clamour’ (BM FmE 4/1/18). 

In the end, however, she agreed to sell her 
annuity for £15,000. A release dated 11 July 1684 
stated that the manors of Castle Cary, Almesforth, 


Ilminster and Norton Beauchamp had been sold 
to buy in the annuities of Mary (now Duchess of 
Beaufort) and Sir Heneage Finch, and to discharge 
the arrears of annuities due to the Dowager 
Countess of Southampton and Lady Jane Clifford. 
However, she did not give Lord Bruce full power 
to make leases. According to the document, 
properties which were not already leased could now 
be let on the best terms possible without fines, but 
for limited terms only. All such leases were to be 
made by the consent of Mary, her husband, the 
Duke of Beaufort, or the Earl of Clarendon until 
£15,000 was decreed to be raised, then until 
£10,000 be raised, after which leases may be 
granted without consent. The rest of the property 
went into a trust to pay £500 to Elizabeth for her 
sole use and, if that was insufficient, Lord Bruce 
promised to make up the difference (WSRO 1300/ 
676). 

Thomas and Elizabeth continued to have 
financial problems that prevented them from paying 
off the annuities immediately. In October 1684, the 
latter wrote to her mother from London, asking 
her to send ‘money due to them, as they are pressed. 
My lord must pay interest on his own debts, 
expenses of two to three years standing, as well as 
near £500 to clerks, solicitors and Mr. Cratford for 
business’ (WSRO 1300/722). 

Seeking to raise money, Thomas began to cut 
timber and plough up pastures on his wife’s estate. 
A clause in the 1684 deed caused a limitation of 
the estate to Elizabeth for her life without 
impeachment of waste. His memorandum book 
listed the profits which could be made from estates 
in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Somerset. In Wiltshire, 
he wrote, ‘if all the trees were cut would yield 
£8,000, but then deer would not continue.’ The 
500 acre estate at Collingbourne might yield 
£5,000; Bentley Woods, £3,000, while Tottenham 
Park might provide another £2,000. If he exercised 
his right to carry away timber from various Wiltshire 
estates, including Amesbury, Easton, Sutton 
[Sudden] Park, Wolfhall, Chisbury, Shalbourne, and 
Great Bedwyn, he might gain £3,000. Ifhe ploughed 
their sheep commons, meadows and pastures he 
might gain another £2,000 (no thought seems to 
have been given to the tenants of these properties). 
In Somerset the profit to be made by wasting estate 
was valued at only £5,000, considerably less than in 
Wiltshire (WSRO 1300/856). Mary was appalled. 
She later reproached her daughter for having allowed 
her husband to plough up Tottenham Park, ‘the only 
park you have,’ and to cut £2,500 worth of wood. 


| 


‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 105 


‘Your other seat, Easton,’ was leased out ‘and the 
tenant for some ready money allowed to plough up 
the richest piece of down in Wiltshire, and indeed, 
ruined the farm. This is what your lord himself tells 
me, much more of this kind may be, which I know 
not’? (WSRO 1300/717). 

Thomas continued to look for ways to pay off 
Mary’s jointure. He wrote asking whether Henry 
would accept the manors of Malden and Burbage 
in Bedfordshire in lieu of £10,000. ‘If only your 
Grace will but allow Maldon at £4,000 and Burbage 
at six there will be the £10,000 complete. And for 
the moiety of £1,750 [being] short of the £10,000 
at the strictest, I will give my Lord Worcester security 
for that out of any of the manors in Wiltshire he 
pleases to choose.’ He wrote that, ‘by this means, 
your Grace will oblige us very much and make me 
capable of looking into my concerns and paying 
my debts as fast as the estate will bear. He had 
taken charge of his own affairs after his steward left 
him and, he wrote, ‘I think I have put my business 
into a great order.’ As for his gambling, ‘the 
diversion your Grace thinks me so beslaved to, I 
have entirely left off, retaining myself wholly to my 
concerns whether in town or country’ (WSRO 
1300/799). 

Failing this, he sought to gain an Act of 
Parliament which would permit him to sell land 
and to grant leases in reversion, despite the fact 
that he had not yet paid off the annuities. His bill 
(which was dropped at the outbreak of Monmouth’s 
Rebellion) contained language which was sure to 
infuriate his mother-in-law. He claimed that his wife 
had been forced into signing the 1684 agreement: 


by reason of the great and uncontrollable power the 
Duchess of Beaufort had over the estate, occasioned 
by settlements many years since at her former 
marriage, and by some obtained settlements at Lady 
Bruce’s marriage, which were most unwillingly 
consented to, it being thought very hard to be imposed 
on to settle half her estate on her brother, the Earl of 
Worcester, who was but of the half blood, in case she 
had no children’ (OE/10.). 


Mary’s brother, the Earl of Essex, encouraged 
her to forgive the insult and to come to terms with 
Lord Bruce. ‘I have spoken with my Lord Chief 
Justice Pemberton, who tells me that for all those 
manors on which your jointure is charged the trust 
cannot be delivered up without a decree in Chancery; 
and therefore my Lord Bruce must endeavour to 
have your consent.’ He thought that there might be 
a way to allow the latter to let leases in reversion: 


so as to discharge the incumbrances therein and be 
applied to no other uses. And therefore if the payment 
of £1,600 a year be safe to you, what ever unkindness 
may have passed or indiscretion on their side, I concur 
it would appear well if you did agree. This is only my 
own thought and so I shall write no further (OE/8). 


Mary, however, was not going to give in without a 
fight. ‘In my answer I shall be forced to say that 
which will not be much for his honour.’ But she 
concluded that ‘the more public my proceeding is 
made, I am sure the more it will be for mine and 
my Lord’s (benefit) though it may cost me some 
money’ (WSRO 1300/702). 

Her public disclosure of her son-in-law’s debts, 
gambling and general bad conduct led to his 
disgrace at court. Thomas later wrote, ‘I was the 
sacrifice, and at the mercy of an implacable hatred 
the Duchess of Beaufort (God forgive her) had 
against me. She blew up her brother-in-law, the Earl 
of Clarendon (Lord Privy Seal), and his brother 
(Laurence, earl of Rochester) the Treasurer.’ By 
their means, he was excluded at the forming of the 
king’s bedchamber. When he protested to 
Rochester, ‘to whom the king had referred me, he 
poorly let fall a weak (but revengeful) word for a 
minister. ‘My lord, you have a difference with the 
Duchess of Beaufort. I sharply replied, ‘My lord, 
what is it to the king’s business, although the 
duchess were your mother?’ On which I clapped 
on my hat, and turned my back.’ Later, he begged 
an audience with James II to ask ‘for what reason I 
was disgraced, after the eminent services .. . I had 
rendered him in the House.’ The king answered, * 
“Why,” he said, “you would have brought in a bill 
(which I let drop on the Duke of Monmouth’s 
landing) to the prejudice of your children.”’ When 
Ailesbury read him the contents of the bill (which 
did not mention any land sold, wood cut or waste 
committed), the king said with some emotion, 
‘Lord, how people can represent to me such 
falsities!” (Memoirs of Thomas Bruce, Earl of 
Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club 1890), 1, pp. 99, 111- 
WD): 

Ailesbury was to find it far easier to get an Act 
of Parliament after 1688. Following the accession 
of William and Mary, the Houses began to pass a 
large number of bills dealing with trusts. It is not 
clear why so many landowners felt the need to 
refinance their estates at this particular time. 
Perhaps they feared the consequences of another 
revolutionary change in government? More likely 
they wanted to take advantage of an exceptionally 


106 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


active land market to sell property and to 
consolidate their estates. Acts of Parliament allowed 
them to break trusts (many of which had been 
created in the 1660s) and to create new settlements. 
Landowners could then sell land and raise money 
to pay off debts or to invest in the stock market or 
overseas ventures. Sir Henry Capel later wrote that 
‘the current of the times, and the many bills in the 
Houses let daily pass for payment of debts, makes 
it much more difficult to be heard in defence of 
minors, or remainders, than when first I had the 
honour to sit in Parliament’? (WSRO 1300/790). 

In 1690 Ailesbury took advantage of these post- 
revolutionary changes to bring another bill before 
the House of Commons on 8 October 1690. In it 
he sought the right to make leases in reversion. He 
claimed that the provisions of their marriage 
contract had been fulfilled and that the £15,000 
and £10,000 to pay off the annuities had been 
raised. In fact, he had gone into debt to raise the 
above sums. Without full power over the estate, he 
and his wife could only ‘deal with their tenants upon 
such terms as they can, (though never so 
disadvantageous;) because they cannot deal with 
others by granting the estates that fall in reversion 

. and by reason thereof cannot make the just 
profits of their estates.’ The bill ensured that 
Elizabeth’s estate was vested in trustees for the 
repayment of debts until her son reached the age 
of twenty-one or, failing that, until his daughter 
reached the age of twenty-one. She would receive 
£500 p. a. for her own use while Ailesbury would 
receive £4,000 p. a. In the event of his death she 
was to have £1,000 p. a. Their son, meanwhile, 
would get £500 p. a. until he was fifteen years old 
and £1,000 until he was twenty-one. The trust 
would also provide for the disposal of the yearly 
sum of £3,000 for the repayment of Ailesbury’s 
debts and interest with the residue of the profits 
going to the younger children. In the meantime, 
the former was disbarred from voluntary waste 
(WSRO 1300/772). 

Mary’s lawyers fired off an immediate answer, 
claiming that the bill was simply an attempt on 
Ailesbury’s part to persuade creditors to part with 
further sums of money. He had ‘already engaged 
the whole estate for his wife’s life and his (leased 
their properties), and spent the money, and would 
only have the Act for confirmation of that and 
establishing a better credit.’ Great sums of money 
had already been raised ‘by the leases, which he 
had no power upon but by her Grace’s kindness’ 
(WSRO 1300/822). 


Mary was deeply disturbed by the contents of 
the bill. Her daughter, who was to have had £1,500 
p. a., now had to be content with one-third of that 
amount. ‘But what will not a wife do that loves her 
husband and is threatened by him to go away and 
leave her?’ “The question,’ she wrote, ‘is whether 
her mother, if she can prevent her doing herself 
this mischief should not’? (WSRO 1300/741). 

She was also concerned about the consequences 
that his political activities might have on the estate. 
Ailesbury had supported James II during the 
revolution of 1688 and his loyalty to the new 
monarchs, William and Mary, was half-hearted to 
say the least. She wrote to her son Charles that, 
‘the only way now for her to help herself and 
children’ is to prevail with her husband to burn ‘the 
deeds that may lead the uses of that fine .. . This 
must not be spoken of because if he should now do 
otherwise than well [i.e. if he should be disloyal], 
her estate will be forfeited to the government. This 
she should also know, which perhaps her fanciful 
humour may prevail more with her than any other 
consideration . .. Pray tell her she knows not what 
she did’ (WSRO 1300/714). Meanwhile, Sir Henry 
Capel promised his sister that he would try to stop 
the bill in the Commons. He and his brother-in- 
law Clarendon were optimistic: 


for besides that your friends will do their parts in 
giving it all possible obstructions in both Houses, in 
all probability the rising of the Parliament (and ‘tis 
confidentially said it will be prorogued this next week) 
will put an end to it. And before another meeting, it 
is to be hoped my Lord Ailesbury and his Lady will 
be come into their wits (WSRO 1300/784). 


Thomas tried to reason with his mother-in-law, 
writing to her on 11 November 1690. He explained 
that he sought an Act of Parliament against the 
advice of his friends and counsel who thought it: 


better to create a trust without an Act and to run the 
hazard of our two lives and then I do not debar myself 
from committing necessary waste. My answer, always, 
is that I choose to plant rather than cut down and if I 
could be any ways at ease I would never commit any 
sort of waste and, therefore, to be debarred from it 
by the trust would be no more than debarring myself 
voluntarily. The difference between an Act and no 
Act will be this, if there be one I am sure to have my 
debts paid, (my) children provided for and (the) 
beauty of an estate preserved, notwithstanding .. . 
Another motive I have to decline promoting the Act 
in this that for a small sum of money by policy I could 


‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 107 


secure our 2 lives, which is done daily in the City for 
very great sums and with very little trouble. And all 
this stir I make is only to secure debts that depend 
upon my life. If I could be accommodated and put at 
ease of mind in that matter certainly I should desire 
it... . My motive is to satisfy the creditors only and 
for raising portions (WSRO 1300/764). 


Apparently, Henry responded to his son-in-law 
in a letter that described Elizabeth’s obligations to 
both him and his wife. The letter no longer exists 
but it must have been provocative for, a fortnight 
later, Elizabeth wrote to him in an angry tone: 


I should not have given you the trouble of a letter if 
you had not provoked me to it by saying in yours to 
my Lord what great obligations I have had to you 
heretofore and what dangers you run for me, without 
any advantage to yourself... This is so high a 
provocation that I cannot forbear giving you such an 
answer as suitable to it. If you do not like it, you may 
thank yourself for giving me the occasion. I know 
nothing that ever you did that looked like a kindness 
to me, except it were that you had a hand in making 
our match. But though you proposed it, you repented 
it as soon as you had done, and tried all the ways in 
the world to break it both fair and foul. 


She was angry that her half-brother Charles 
stood to inherit her estate in the event that she had 
no children. She suggested that anyone but her 
husband and father-in-law would have ‘burnt those 
writings that settled above half my estate upon your 
heirs. I do assure you, if I were to do [it] again, I 
would burn them all before I would sign one of 
them. I had not done it then but my case was so 
bad that I had not a friend in the world to help me,’ 
With regard to his purchase of Amesbury on her 
behalf, ‘that it was what any stranger would have 
done... I have a great deal of reason to believe that 
you hoped it would have been your own; I do not 
question that you thought yourself sure of that and 
a great deal more of my estate.’ She continued: 


I think you have used me very hardly in tying my 
Lord and I up so that we cannot let leases in reversion, 
a liberty that all my ancestors had, and I do not know 
why I should not have it. But ‘tis like all the rest of 
your usage that I have met with from you. I find you 
think my Lord does intend to ruin his children. I know 
no reason you have to say so except you judge by 
yourself... I will say no more because I have been 
very large already though I have said no more than 
the truth and not all that. Your Grace’s humble 
servant, E[lizabeth] Ailesbury (WSRO 1300/716). 


Mary, rather than her husband, fired off a 
response dated 29 November 1690. She explained 
that Henry had permitted her to answer the letter 
because: 


In ali concerns relating either to your brother or you 
he has always been pleased to leave the management 
to me, as well of your estate as persons. And, in truth, 
your letter is so full of false and unjust slanders . . . 
that it can deserve nothing but such an indignation 
and contempt from him as will not allow the 
vouchsafement of an answer. Neither should it have 
one irom me did I not think it the duty of a mother 
not to let so great a sin in a child pass without an 
animadversion .. . for Hell itself is hardly capable of 
more malice or unnaturalness than you in this have 
showed to me .. . I should not have thought a stab 
through my heart less kind in you. 


She answered her daughter’s criticisms, point 
by point. With regards to his purchase of the 
Wiltshire property, ‘my Lord was offered above 
£10,000 for Amesbury and, I believe, might have 
had more, for he bought it absolutely, not in trust 
for you, and paid his own money for it, and might 
have kept it to his own use, if he had pleased. But 
he generously was pleased to convey it to you for 
the bare money it cost him.’ She continued: 


Now, to the settlement of half the estate upon my 
son Worcester .. . you yourself knew was not out of 
any desire either my lord or I had to get any part of 
your estate, but to fix it so as it might not be in your 
power to ruin yourself and your children by giving it 
all to your lord, to throw away, as you now are fond 
to do with whatever you can, and which the lawyers 
said could not be done but by lodging the inheritance 
of whatever we would have so preserved in somebody. 
You know yourself I proposed the Duke of Somerset 
who had the title and was heir male to your family 
but you said “by no means there”. I then asked you 
whether in any of your aunts or their children, you 
said “of all people not them”, they had behaved 
themselves so to you and would have gotten all from 
you. I then asked, on whom then, whether on your 
brother Herbert who was then indeed in France and 
thought as little of it as I did till you had refused the 
others... 

In answer to what you say that your ancestors 
had a power in granting reversions, I omitted to tell 
you that your father had it not, as appears by the 
deed of settlement on our marriage, neither do I think 
that grandfather had it, for I could never hear that he 
made use of it which, considering his circumstances, 


108 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


he would certainly have done, had he had it. Other 
things I have to say which I reserve ‘til I hear your 
Lord has put in his bill which all the world must and 
shall know I can have no other end in opposing but 
the good of you and your children. 


She restrained herself from berating her daughter 
but she could not resist one small insult. She asked 
Elizabeth why, if her husband was so very fond of 
his wife and children, she had no jewels or finery? 
‘I believe no woman but yourself, with the tenth 
part of your fortune, but has at least a pearl necklace 
to put about her neck’ (WSRO 1300/717). 

She also spread word of Elizabeth’s letter to her 
friends and relations, “knowing well the tongues of 
those I have had to do with.’ She sent Clarendon a 
copy of her daughter’s ‘most slanderous letter’ and 
asked him to show it to his brother Lord Rochester, 
‘who I have already troubled in this business.’ She 
also sent a copy to her lawyer, Christopher Cratford, 
who declared himself shocked (WSRO 1300/343B, 
739, 786). 

Meanwhile, the Act of Parliament was being 
considered in the House of Commons. Ailesbury 
had printed and circulated his own broadsheet in 
which he protested against ‘the unreasonable and 
ungrounded opposition that is made to the most 
just bill of this nature that ever was presented.’ It 
seemed to do some good for Mary’s lawyer, Godfrey 
Harcourt, spoke with Sir Francis Pemberton who 
warned him that the bill was likely to pass, in which 
case ‘care must be taken to restrain his power as 
much as may be.’ The former added that he ‘would 
have mentioned his playing (gambling) by which 
his debts are contracted but that I durst not do’ 
(WSRO 1300/7806). 

On 1 January 1691, Harcourt described the 
passage of the bill through the House of Lords: 


Ihave done all I could to prevent the passing of Lord 
Ailesbury’s bill, but his coming to court at this time 
gained him a great many friends in both Houses. The 
Bishop of Sarum was his great stickler and never 
missed being at the committees. At one of them, Lord 
Mulgrave took him up very short and silenced him. 
All that concerned themselves heartily for your Grace 
was Lord Mulgrave and Lord Rochester. The Duke 
of Somerset was against the bill but did not say much. 
After we had been at several committees and our 
counsel had declared, at every one of them, that your 
Grace could not consent to the bill because it would 
be to the prejudice of the lady and her children, when 
they came to report it to the House, it was said that 
we had consented to the bill and the amendment. 


Lord Mulgrave came out to me and asked me, had 
we consented to the bill and the amendment? I assured 
his lordship we had given no consent, neither could 
I, because I had your Grace’s commands to the 
contrary. When the house was up, I waited on Lord 
Halifax, Duke of Somerset, Lord Rochester, Lord 
Mulgrave and several other lords before they came 
out of the House and acquainted them that your 
Upon the 
next day, though, the bill was engrossed. It was 


Grace would not consent to the bill... 


recommitted and we had great hopes we should throw 
out the bill but our party was not strong enough. 


Harcourt noted that Ailesbury gave him ‘a great 
many hard words and told me in the house that 
there were things spread abroad to his prejudice to 
prevent the passing of the bill, that if he could fix it 
on the author he would have him in the pillory, 
One thing that he particularly took offence at was 
the notion that he would leave Elizabeth if she did 
not solicit this bill. ‘I told his lordship that I had 
not said any such thing.’ 

After the Lords passed the bill and sent it to 
the House of Commons, Harcourt told Capel ‘how 
the whole matter had been managed at the House 
of Lords and gave him the names of such persons 
as I was sure would do your Grace all the service 
they could at the committee.’ In the end, however: 


we had not number enough to carry it against the bill 
but Sir Henry was satisfied we had done all we could 
to oppose it... Sir Edward Seymour (was) for the 
bill and made very many in the house. When Capel 
saw they were resolved to pass the bill, he went away 
and left them to pass it and told me it was to no 
purpose to make any further opposition (WSRO 
1300/787). 


Once the bill had passed both Houses of 
Parliament and had received royal assent, Ailesbury 
no longer had any reason to be polite to his mother- 
in-law. In a letter dated 22 January 1691, he told 
her exactly what he thought of her behaviour. He 
began by noting her ‘endeavors to vilify’ him and 
Elizabeth. ‘For me to wonder at it would be strange 
since I have had no other reason for these many 
years but to expect all the hardships and cruelties 
that the malice of woman could invent.’ He 
continued: 


The many extraordinary letters I have had from you 
might have required a speedier answer, if matters of 
moment had not since taken up my time... I cannot 
say indeed that my debt was contracted through the 
misfortune of a civil war, nor that there is no other 


‘FALSE AND UNJUST SLANDERS’: THE DUCHESS OF BEAUFORT AND HER DAUGHTER 109 


way to run into that misfortune, since I have found 
by experience that the unkindness of a mother-in- 
law has been more fatal to me than any other accident 
that can be named, and the little reason there was for 
it made it seem the more unkind. 

But I should not wonder at anything that has 
happened of late when the proceedings during the 
treaty of my marriage and upon the conclusion are 
so fresh in my memory, first to surprise my father 
into a promise (which he and his family values above 
all gain) not to have any personal application made 
to the lady until counsel on both sides had settled 
matters referred to them. This had not been much if 
that lady at the same time had not been told how 
backward I was, and whether it would be prudent in 
her to settle into a family, that had so little respect for 
her, this I must own was a masterpiece, but of what, 
I leave the world to judge... 

Tam told of great waste at Pilton . .. and of waste 
at Tottenham and Easton and great sums made in 
the last plowing, and that my wife was compelled to 
part with her jointure house [Amesbury] . . . (when, 
by the way, she has one in Yorkshire of 3 times that 
bigness). I know as little of them as of my losing 
£60,000 at dice, which was given about in the House 
of Commons to blast a reputation that will stand good 
in spite of all calamities. 


He also took a parting shot at the Duke of 
Beaufort’s pride and joy, the landscape at 
Badminton with its avenues of elm trees extending 
miles in every direction. ‘I have planted much and 
continue to so each season but ever with this 
caution, to plant on my own ground, pay my 
neighbours their tithe quietly and not to remove 
their landmarks for to widen my prospects and 
indulge an eye that generally covets the ground and 
highways that God Almighty has placed for the good 
and use of those that ought to enjoy them.’ As to 
his wife’s lack of jewellry, ‘to this I give a plain 
answer, that when I was under wardship (no less 
than 14 years) I never durst mention anything of 
that nature for fear half the pearls (besides the very 
best in the middle) should have been settled on your 
family, as all the estate was’ (WSRO 1300/775). 

In December 1691, the Act of Parliament was 
finally given the royal assent. Mary had made one 
last attempt to stop the passage of the bill but 
William III, ‘after some little time of thoughtfulness 
with himself, told her brother that he could not 
deny it after it had been passed by both Houses. 
Capel, however, did manage to get Ailesbury to 
‘promise his Majesty to trouble him no more with 


such bills of his debts; the which accordingly he 
did promise the king. And the king at the same time 
replied to him, ‘My Lord, and I assure you I will 
pass no more such Bills’ (WSRO 1300/790). 

The bitterness which this Act engendered did 
not disappear overnight. It took four years before 
Ailesbury and his wife said that they were ‘sorry’ 
for what had happened and promised that, in the 
future, they would pay their parents ‘all duty and 
respect.’ Clarendon urged his sister-in-law to forgive 
them so ‘that what is passed may be forgotten and 
that all letters and papers which have passed on 
both sides may be burnt’ (WSRO 1300/791). 

Mary, however, found it difficult to forget. She 
responded, that there was: 


no subject ... more agreeable both to my lord’s nature 
and mine than to forgive injuries and be kind to our 
children, but I have been so accustomed to this way 
of proceeding of Lord Ailesbury and his wife (for 
always, when he has designs of mischief to himself 
and family, then these kind fits come upon him, as a 
great number of his letters and proposals do show). . 
. I cannot but with great reason expect that my 
daughter shall most humbly beg pardon of my lord 
(the best father-in-law I ever knew) for the lying, 
unmannerly letter which she writ to him. As for his 
to me, crammed likewise with horrid lies and malice, 
I forgive him, but shall always take care of her, and 
her children (let her behaviour to me be what it will) 
(WSRO 1300/277). 


In March 1696 Ailesbury was arrested and 
charged with treason. He was discovered to be a 
sympathizer of James II (he had travelled to France 
to visit the exiled monarch three years earlier) and 
to have participated in a plot aimed at removing 
William III from the throne. In fact, he had not 
conspired with Sir John Fenwick, but he had visited 
his house numerous times along with a number of 
his fellow Jacobites. As a result he was sent to the 
Tower of London. When it became clear that he 
would be staying for an indefinite period, Elizabeth 
moved in with him and the two lived together in 
two small, furnished rooms. The latter found, to 
her surprise, that she was pregnant despite the fact 
that she was forty-two years old. When the 
November chill proved too harsh for her, however, 
she was forced to move to Ailesbury House in 
London. 

Elizabeth died on 12 January 1697. She had 
unexpectedly heard the sound of gunfire — a royal 
salute — and was told that the king was on his way 
to Parliament to give his assent to a bill of attainder 


110 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


against Sir John Fenwick. She was so fearful that 
this would lead to her husband’s eventual demise 
that she suffered a sudden seizure. She went into 
labour, though she was only seven months pregnant, 
and slipped into a coma from which she never woke. 
She gave birth to a daughter who was named, 
ironically, Mary. 

Ailesbury was released from the Tower soon 
after his wife’s death. He returned to his family 
home in Bedfordshire where he interested himself 
in gardening; the return of his kidney stone 
prevented him from more active sports. It is likely 
that his condition was aggravated by a renewed 
correspondence with his mother-in-law. But they 
did not annoy each other for long. At the end of 
January 1698 he left England after discovering that 
the government was forcing a bill through 
Parliament rendering all persons guilty of high 
treason who could be proved to have been in France, 
without royal permission, at any time during the 
years 1689-97. He would spend the rest of his life 
in Brussels, the capital of the Spanish Netherlands. 
During this time he converted to Roman 
Catholicism and married, in 1700, Charlotte 
Jacqueline d’Argenteau (d. 1710), daughter of the 
late Comte d’Esneux. Not surprisingly, the 
marriage settlement was fraught with difficulties. 
Ailesbury later described his new mother-in-law as 
‘the most uneasy person in business as ever was’ — 
with the exception of the Duchess of Beaufort. He 


also wrote his now-famous volume, Memoirs of 
Thomas Earl of Ailesbury, Written by Himself. 

The Dowager Duchess of Beaufort died at 
Chelsea House in London in 1715, worn out by 
successive legal battles, first with Elizabeth and 
Ailesbury, then with her daughter-in-law Rebecca, 
marchioness of Worcester, and, finally, with her 
grandson, the second Duke of Beaufort. Ailesbury, 
meanwhile, outlived his mother-in-law by twenty- 
six years, dying in his adopted city of Brussels at 
the age of eighty-five. His son Charles enjoyed the 
earldom for only a few years before he, too, died in 
1747. He left behind a daughter but no male heirs. 
As aresult, his properties in Wiltshire and Yorkshire 
were bequeathed to his nephew Thomas Brudenell- 
Bruce. Houghton House was sold to the Duke of 
Bedford while Tottenham Park and the Savernake 
estate remained in the hands of the Brudenell family. 

The Seymour dispute highlights the difficulties 
which inheritances and settlements could cause, 
particularly when great sums of money were 
involved. It illustrates the growing desire on the part 
of young noblemen such as Ailesbury to manage 
their own properties and to free themselves from 
the constraints of marriage settlements and trusts. 
It also shows the lengths to which a mother (and 
former widow) would go to protect her daughter 
and to ensure that an estate survived not only the 
folly of its owners but also any future change in 
regime. 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 111-128 


‘A Feast of Reason and a Flow of Soul’: the 
Archaeological Antiquarianism of Sir Richard 


Colt Hoare 
by David Robinson 


While Sir Richard Colt Hoare is famous for his motto ‘I speak from facts, not theory’ and is considered 
pivotal in the creation of scientific archaeology, historians often deride his methodology as ‘primitive’. 
Modern scholars have under-valued the motivational contexts of aesthetics and emotion underlying Hoare’s 
efforts. Using narrative techniques developed in his travels, Hoare was influenced by late-eighteenth century 
concepts of the picturesque, the sublime, and his own personal history. Against this background, his Baconian- 
derived principles of inductive reasoning created conflicts. His work was performed in conscious reaction 
to satirists and the contemporary debate between the Ancients and the Moderns. Hoare used advances in 
surveying and manipulated imagery to enhance Ancient Wiltshire, a carefully crafted set of publications 
responding to conflicting requirements of contemporary culture. His combining of reason with the emotion 
of the romantic imagination 1s his enduring contribution to archaeological history. 


In most accounts, Sir Richard Colt Hoare (1758- 
1838) is portrayed as a ‘pioneer’ in the birth of 
scientific archaeology as it emerged from the 
speculative concerns of antiquarians before him 
(e.g. Piggott 1989, 154; Marsden 1999, 39). While 
sometimes acknowledging that Hoare’s work should 
be judged by the standards of the early nineteenth- 
century, commentators often dwell on how right 
or wrong Colt Hoare’s interpretations were. They 
also analyse his techniques of excavation, usually 
critical of his ‘execrable’ methods and rapidity of 
excavations (Marsden 1999, 25, 35; Daniel 1981, 
56). Hoare’s work is criticised, and either 
condemned or praised for how well it stands up to 
the contemporary standards of modern 
archaeology. Moreover, his work is valuable 
primarily in its contribution to the evolutionary 
chain rising from the mists of antiquarian ignorance 
to the establishment of the methodological rigour 
of modern archaeologists. As Schnapp claims, 
archaeology is the ‘product of a long evolution’ 
originating as a ‘fully fledged discipline... at a very 
precise period, the mid 19th century, in the context 


of the emergence of positivist science in Europe’ 
(2002, 140, 138). We are warned that without our 
modern methodologies, ‘archaeologists would soon 
revert to the antiquarians they had once been’ (ibid. 
140, my italics). Colt Hoare stands as the iconic 
link at the fulcrum-point connecting and separating 
the primitive, the antiquarian, with/from the 
advanced, the archaeological scientist. It is ironic 
that this kind of social evolutionary interpretation 
of the object of the archaeological pursuit has been 
largely discredited, while this value-judgement 
within the historical practice of archaeology is still 
a dominant narrative. We no longer cast our 
aspersions upon the ‘savages of prehistory’, but the 
antiquarians still are condemned as less evolved 
versions of ourselves. Piggott specifically criticises 
Hoare for describing the prehistoric ‘barrow- 
builders in the most unflattering light of pessimistic 
primitivism while Piggott himself equates Hoare’s 
methodology from a precisely identical idiom: “The 
technique of excavation was to remain at the 
primitive level of the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries until it was revolutionized and set on a 


Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ 


112 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


recognizably modern footing by General Pitt-Rivers 
in 1880-1900’ (Piggott 1989, 158, my italics). Pitt- 
Rivers himself was an ardent critic of Hoare’s 
‘unscientific methods’ (Marsden 1999, 30), while 
others in the early 1900s denounced Hoare’s work: 


Tumuli and Beacon Mounds were once the unique 
glory of Wiltshire. . . 
and idle, such as R.C. Hoare (may his coffin be split 
into firewood and his monument be split up into 


till in an evil day curious men 


paving stones)... under the pretence of science and 
historical research, set to work to destroy these ancient 
tombs... But enough, my choler rises and my hand 
quivers as I write of these vandals who have disgraced 
the name of antiquary. (quote of Edward Dowman, 
1908, in Mitchell 1982, 123-124) 


These kinds of commentaries say little about Colt 
Hoare himself and ultimately obscure under- 
standing of how his work, as a totality, fits into the 
history of archaeology. This paper examines Colt 
Hoare from the context of his experiences and the 
times within which he lived, his own personal 
circumstances and motivations. Specifically some 
of his writings are analysed, concentrating 
particularly on his two major works, The Ancient 
History of South and North Wiltshire (published 
in 1812 and 1821). By close examination, a fuller, 
multi-dimensional human agent can be appreciated 
whose own research was as much driven by the 
experience of the senses as it was a pursuit of 
knowledge. 

The first volume of Ancient Wiltshire opens and 
concludes with his oft quoted motto ‘WE SPEAK 
FROM FACTS, NOT THEORY’. Where did this 
motto originate and how well did he actually stick 
to it? This motto has overshadowed Colt Hoare’s 
active aesthetic approach, his emotional and 
experiential response to the subject he attempts to 
define as facts. Hoare’s contribution is often 
downgraded because he had not entirely freed 
himself ‘of the romantic approach’ (e.g. Daniel 1981, 
56). But it is this romantic approach that elevates 
Hoare. Struggling in the pursuit of a methodology, 
Colt Hoare’s accomplishment was both an aesthetic 
achievement and a scientific contribution. 


THE DEVICE OF 
LANDSCAPE 


In Ancient Wiltshire, the writing style utilizes the 
technique of viewing a prospect through the eyes 
of Hoare: 


On this commanding spot we find the skeleton of a 
large British town, hitherto unnoticed in any map, or 
by any writer. It bears the name of Grovely Works, and 
occupies, in the form of a crescent, the high point of a 
hill... it extends nearly a mile in length, and covers a 
space of ground little less than sixty acres, comman- 
ding a very extensive and diversified prospect; towards 
the west, a long range of the vale of Wily, terminated 
with that conspicuous eminence Clay Hiil, presents 
itself, and the view is rendered still more interesting to 
the antiquary by the numerous camps, circles, and 
tumuli which crown the surrounding hills. A thick copse 
wood, intermixed with fine beech trees, forms on the 
opposite side a good constant to the expanded prospect 
across the vale, which is terminated by the distant hills 
in Hampshire, on which we recognize a continuation 
of British fortresses. (Hoare 1812, 110) 


Riding forth on his horse across the chalklands 
of Wiltshire, Colt Hoare takes his reader along with 
him in true Grand Tour style. His Ancient History 
of Wiltshire is structured so that each chapter is a 
narrative journey through the landscape, divided 
by and referenced upon ‘Stations’ from which each 
excursion begins’ (Figure 1). Clearly, he developed 
an affinity with the landscape. From the eminences 
of the uplands, he casts his gaze across the prospect 
and interprets its features, making it intelligible for 
our understanding. His experience of landscapes, 
and most importantly his appreciation of them, was 
rooted in his contemporary culture, but more 
specifically in his own personal history. 

Hoare had extensive experience viewing 
landscapes in his travels. For the greater part of six 
years from 1787 to 1793, he travelled incessantly 
in Europe. In a 22-month stretch, it has been 
calculated that he travelled 6571 miles by 580 stages 
(a statistic which does not include local daily 
excursions) (Woodbridge 1970, 77). Later, when 
warfare broke out on the continent and he was 
forced to return to England, he was to make almost 
annual tours to Wales, Northern England or Ireland: 


Monday 30th June. Left Buttermere and proceeded 
on the right bank of Crummock Lake. This lake is 
about four miles long. The mountains around it are 
more barren.... I again crossed the Cocker and 
entered the beautiful Vale of Lorton. What a sudden 
change of scenery! Adieu to crags, torrents, lakes and 
precipices. An extensive well-wooded and cultivated 
valley... now presents itself. (Hoare [1983], 134) 


His copious journal descriptions are often detailed 
to the point of minutiae. But his technique creates 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 113 


STATION 


WILY. Wie 


oF oll 
4 ° 
n 


: rid) 
: = 


Steeple Langford. 
3 G 
SSE 
* Stapleford 
meee Lat ty Salisbury 
ay 


=D 


Fig. 1. Wily. Station IV. Engraving by J. Cary from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) 


an almost ‘cinematic’ effect in its narrative 
progression: Hoare’s methods fit within a wider 
eighteenth and nineteenth-century emerging 
tradition of what Flaxman calls ‘word-painting’ or 
‘visually oriented passages’ which ‘transforms a 
static catalogue of visual data into the dramatization 
of the visual’ (1987, 9-10). Each description forms 
a picture; framed in words, it is an attempt at 
accuracy that also speaks of his deeply embedded 
view of the picturesque. Colt Hoare was an 
illustrator. His self-proclaimed ‘love of drawing’ was 
‘imbibed at an early period of life’ (Hoare 1814, 
preface). As an artist his intent was to reproduce 
the landscape both in writings and drawings. As he 
travelled, he actively sought the ‘rugged and devious 
path’ to find interesting subjects and, as he states, 
‘much employment of my pencil’ (ibid., 4) (Figure 
2). Equally, his written reconstructions sometimes 
had the intent of evoking an emotive response: 


Nothing could exceed the wildness of the scenery 
through which we passed; we were surrounded with 
lofty pines, huge rocks, tremendous precipices, and 
continually overlooked the Rhone, which foamed 
endless cascades down the rapid descent . ..With joy 
I beheld the source of a river, whose wanderings I 
had traced .. . and whose banks had delighted me 


with a rich variety of grand and picturesque scenery. 
(quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 106) 


This ideal of the picturesque has its roots 
partially in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau 
and the ‘ideal of the cultivated wilderness’ (ibid., 
107). Although Rousseau believed in the faculty of 
reason, ‘he emphasized emotion and sensibility as 
important aspects of human behaviour’’ (Trigger 
1989, 66). Exploring southern Wiltshire, Hoare 
found the environment of Cranborne Chase 
“bewitching, the air so pure, and the turf so soft’ he 
could not ‘resist the pleasure of pursuing the Ridge 
beyond the limits of Wiltshire’ (Hoare 1812, 248). 
This emotive response to nature reflected 
philosophical writings of the eighteenth century on 
the nature of the human mind. Locke took the idea 
of the ‘camera obscura’ as a model of the mind, 
theorizing, ‘Understanding is not much unlike a 
Closet wholly shut from light, with only some little 
openings left, to let in external visible Resemblances, 
or Ideas of things without’ (quoted in Sambrook 
1993, 60). Burke, drawing from Locke, in A 
Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas 
of the Sublime and the Beautiful (1757) stated, ‘it 
is probable that the standard both of reason and 
Taste is the same in all human creatures... as the 


114 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 2. Hermitage of Monserrato. Engraving by J. Powel, after drawing by J. Smith from sketch by Sir R.C. Hoare 
(Hoare 1814). By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library 


senses are the great originals of all our ideas, and 
consequently of all our pleasures, if they are not 
uncertain and arbitrary, the whole ground-work of 
Taste is common to all’ (ibid., 141). Romantic 
opinion advocated that internal qualities of the 
personality were shaped as the senses interacted 
with nature. Since human sensory perception was 
universal and a picturesque view in nature created 
a particular emotive or aesthetic response, it 
followed that an accurate representation of that view 
would recreate an identical emotive response in the 
viewer. During Hoare’s early travels, the purpose 
of accuracy (in both his writing and drawing) was 
to communicate the natural effect of the picturesque 
— aesthetics and accuracy were co-dependent in 
Hoare’s artistry. Contributing to this framework was 
the concept of the tabula rasa: if the mind at birth 
was like a blank slate or sheet of paper which was 
subsequently impressed or drawn upon through the 
stimuli of the senses, the hope arose ‘of being able 
to transform the operations of human nature 
through a reshaping of environment’ (Sambrook 
1993, 61).? 

A prime example of this reshaping of the 
environment was Hoare’s home of Stourhead 
manor and its grounds. Colt Hoare was born into 


a pre-existing pleasure garden environment where 
his grandfather, Henry, had already incorporated 
landscaping, statues, and classical-style buildings 
in order to ‘evoke the numinous’ (Woodbridge 
1970, 2). Haycock argues these eighteenth-century 
gardens influenced the perception of the landscape 
because people became trained to appreciate 
viewing human constructions (oftentimes classical 
replicas in a ruined state) within a broader visual 
framework (1999, 72). The landscape garden 
became a visual and experiential medium situating 
relationships between structures and the 
environment while training the senses of those 
moving through the landscape to appreciate that 
relationship. Later in life, Hoare’s sensory 
encounters in the ‘wild’ reminded him of the 
gardens back home: 


The mountains abound with such a variety of 
odoriferous plants, many of which are preserved with 
care in our English conservatories, that during the 
greater part of my ride, I almost fancied myself in a 
flower garden. (Hoare 1814, 3) 


At Stourhead, most of the structures in the 
landscape drew on classical Greek and Roman 
architecture and myth (see Woodbridge 1970, 24- 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 115 


37).The past was reinterpreted and reincorporated 
in a landscape that was meant to be experienced 
through a walking tour. Moreover, the garden 
landscape was increasingly viewed as a composition 
much like a landscape painting. So the device used 
in Ancient Wiltshire of leading the reader along as 
in a tour mimics the experience of moving through 
the garden landscape, with its classical architecture 
strategically positioned against a humanly cultivated 
backdrop (Figure 3). This narrative method was 
already a well-established device; earlier 
antiquarians such as William Stukeley had also 
included the reader ‘in the role of traveller’ as an 
active participant, creating a sense of objective 
experience (Haycock 1999, 71). 


MEDIA OF THE 
PICTURESQUE 


As stately gardens in general were calculated to 
‘inspire a meditative, reflective or associative 
response’ (ibid., 74), a picturesque view in the world 


outside the stately garden was similar since it 
instigated an aesthetic sense within the person 
viewing it. When living at Stourhead, Colt Hoare 
was immersed in an environment designed to blend 
nature with antiquity: as an adult he continued 
renovating the grounds to enhance picturesque 
views (Woodbridge 1970, 145-153). Thompson 
states that, while touring, Hoare actively sought out 
the picturesque in the wider landscape because his 
‘prime interest in a ruin was the aesthetic pleasure 
that it gave him; that is why he drew it’ (1983, 21). 
Being an artist, Hoare defined the picturesque strictly 
as a view that could be reproduced in a drawing: 


Much has been disputed about the word pictures- 
que. . . It appears to me that in its true meaning it 
ought only to be applied to such subjects in nature as 
will form a picture and not to those which from the 
great extent of prospect cannot be comprehended 
within the limits of the paper or canvas. (Hoare 
[1983], 256) 


It is important to note that Hoare was seeking 
to display the picturesque in visual medium. It was 


Fig. 3. Stourhead, Temple of Apollo, the Pantheon and Bridge. Watercolour by F. Nicholson. Stourhead, The Hoare 


Collection (The National Trust)/National Trust Photo Library 


116 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


not enough just to experience a view or even simply 
to record it. He sought to create an aesthetic work 
that would be appreciated as a material product 
emphasising the pictorial. With Stonehenge, he 
thinks he is able to express more forcibly his 
appreciation of the monument through ‘viewing’ 
the monument as a reconstruction ‘divested of its 
unmeaning pigmy pillars of granite, and diminutive 
trilithons’ (Hoare 1812, 152) (Figure 4). Hoare 
believed the bluestones (i.e. the ‘pigmy pillars’) were 
late additions to the circle, feeble embellishments 
to an already completed work. Here, the aesthetic 
takes interpretative primacy over facts. Only in 
looking upon his reconstruction can ‘we behold’ 
Stonehenge in all its majesty: 


Captivated by the grandeur of Stonehenge, 
Hoare attempts to express that grandeur in the 
material reconstruction of his published plates. 
Hoare’s facts speak of an emotive response, with the 
ruins of time as an example of the incomprehensible. 
He comments on the leaning lone trilithon behind 
the crushed altar stone at Stonehenge: “This stone, 
in the artist’s eye, from its singular position, and bold 
tenon, forms one of the most picturesque features 
of the building, by breaking the uniformity of the 
upright lines’ (ibid., 148) (Figure 5). 

Despite Hoare’s motto of speaking from facts, 
he often delves into his theories of the picturesque, 
and an archaeological ruin can be a key ingredient. 
The picturesque to Colt Hoare is more than he 


Fig. 4. Centre figure in Various Plans of STONEHENGE. Engraving by J.S. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker 
(Hoare 1812) 


We behold a most majestic and mysterious pile, 
unconfused in its plan, simple and grand in its 
architecture, most awful and imposing in its effect. 
Such indeed is the general fascination imposed on all 
those who view it, that no one can quit its precincts, 
without feeling strong sensations of surprize and 
admiration... The artist, on viewing these enormous 
masses, will wonder that art could thus rival nature 
in magnificence and picturesque effect... and all with 
one accord will exclaim, ‘HOW GRAND! HOW 
WONDERFUL! HOW IN-COMPREHENSIBLE!’ 
(ibid., 152-3) 


allows within his own definition. Technically, the 
broken uniformity enhances the picturesque, but 
the ‘awful and imposing’ impact gains force through 
the incomprehensibility of the ruin. The ruin itself 
(i.e. the dilapidation of the monument through the 
workings of time) enhances the view: the view, in 
turn, touches on the romantic fascination in decay 
and death. In the fabric of his writings, Colt Hoare’s 
personal encounters with death threads together 
another motivational strand for his incessant _ 
wanderings through landscapes that inevitably are 
away from his cultivated home at Stourhead. 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 117 


Fig. 5. West View of Stonehenge. Engraving by J.S. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) 


SUBLIME ESCAPISM 
FROM STOURHEAD 


Above it was a skeleton with its head laid towards the 
south, and which from its position and perfect 
preservation appears not to have been disturbed. Its 
mouth was wide open and it ‘grinn’d horribly a ghastly 
smile,’ a singularity we have never before met with. 
(Hoare 1812, 42). 


Marsden comments that Hoare rarely 
elaborated about the skeletons in the barrow 
openings except when he came across something 
unusual or out of the ordinary (1999, 30). However, 
this is not exactly the case. Utilizing documents 
provided by William Cunnington (who supervised 
most of the excavations) Hoare usually commented 
in Ancient Wiltshire if the internment was cremated 
or inhumed, the direction of the body and how 
many inhumations were discovered.* Sometimes he 
speculated on gender: ‘the very rich and numerous 
trinkets discovered’ in barrow no. 21 of the Lake 
Down Group announced ‘the skeleton to have been 
that of some very distinguished British female’ as 
did numerous beads in another barrow (Hoare 
1812, 163, 213). He seemed inclined to take an 
attitude of respect to the remains, as in one case 
when he was present during a barrow opening: 


When we found that the cist contained a skeleton buried 
in the primitive manner, we began to proceed with 
caution, wishing in the first place to disturb, as little as 
possible, the bones of the Briton’ (Hoare 1821, 93). 


In 1806, Hoare toured Ireland, noting the 
‘irreligious indecency’ in the condition of a 
churchyard where ‘in no place have I seen so little 
reverence paid to the dead; for here you may see 
coffins with skeletons exposed to public sight 
through the apertures of the stone’ (Hoare 1807, 
218). At other times, however, his attitude towards 
the bones was quite different from reverential 
respect as one ‘experiment’ illustrates: ‘When 
throwing the bones of this skeleton, we had strong 
proof how well they are preserved when deposited 
deep in the chalk, as they would bear being thrown 
for a considerable distance without breaking’ 
(Hoare 1812, 163). 

However it is Hoare’s much more personal 
encounter in the death of his newborn child, 
followed by the death of his wife Hester and then 
his grandfather all in the space of three months in 
1785 which propelled him into his Tours of Europe 
and consequently to his deep interest in ruins. Just 
before Hester’s death, Hoare wrote to a relative 
intimating a longing for his ‘favourite diversion’ of 
escaping to the countryside where he hoped to be 
‘content...looking down...from some High Torr’ 


118 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


(quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 75). His need to 
escape was intensified by the fact that his inheritance 
of Stourhead came with the condition that he no 
longer engage in the family business (ibid., 69). 
Excluded from work and not emotionally up to 
living at Stourhead where his wife and second child 
had just died, Colt Hoare fled to the landscapes of 
the continent as ‘new plans and new scenes became 
necessary to alleviate his mind from his late family 
losses”? (Hoare [1840], xii). 

On the road in Italy, his first recorded interest 
in antiquities occurred with his visits to the 
excavations of Herculaneum and Pompeii 
(Woodbridge 1970, 87). At Capo di Monte, he 
visited the Catacombs and began developing his 
own aesthetic writings on death: 


It is impossible for anyone, I think, to go through 
this immense repository of the Dead, where 
thousands of skulls are dispers’d about, without 
being forcibly stuck with awe and horror...For my 
own part, I never saw the few skulls and bones 
thrown upon the stage in the play of Hamlet without 
some sensation, how much stronger then were my 
feelings, on walking thro’ this dark arched vault (by 
the light of a funereal torch) strewn with thousands 
of relics of my fellow creatures. (ibid.) 


The confrontation with death was considered a 
sublime experience of emotion, but of a greater 
intensity than the more refined yet relatively milder 
experience of the picturesque. In its pursuit of 
strong emotions, romanticism at times became 
preoccupied with horror and evil (Trigger 1989, 
66). Many writers in the eighteenth century 
considered the aesthetics of sublime fear, aroused 
by obscurity, darkness, and uncertainty as the 
strongest emotion the mind was capable of feeling 
(Sambrook 1993, 142). Hoare’s dismay in Ireland 
at seeing the poor condition of the graveyard was 
supplanted by the sublime upon entering the 
church: “The scene which presented itself to me, 
on entering these hallowed walls, struck me most 
forcibly; it was truly impressive, and all was in 
character; skulls, bones, and coffins, thick around 
me’ (Hoare 1807, 125). 

In the experience of the sublime, the normal 
emotional state ‘is violated by some overwhelming 
or traumatic experience, producing a moment of 
arrest or suspension that is immediately followed 
by recovery, a return to the pre-sublime state’ (Voller 
1994, iv). But it was not considered necessary to 
travel catacombs by torchlight to prompt the 
sublime - nature had the potential to produce such 


an effect through moments of astonishment or the 
“sensual experience of delightful terror’ (ibid., 4). 
The crumbling remains of antiquity, the decaying 
bones of the dead, the awesome precipice of isolated 
rugged landscapes, all were emotively alluring to 
Hoare. He relished approaching Mount Vesuvius 
as it ‘vomited’ smoke and stones around him 
(Woodbridge 1970, 86). Years later, in the rugged 
heights of Wales, he describes entering a ‘savage 
wilderness’ where ‘towering rocks, deep chasms like 
craters, huge disjointed fragments’ excited 
‘amazement and almost horror’ (Hoare [1983], 
269). Hoare’s escape to Europe and his 
confrontations with Vesuvius and the Catacombs 
amounted to a cathartic therapy dealing with the 
death of his loved ones — his encounter with the 
sepulchral monuments on the plains of Wiltshire 
with the skeletal remains hidden and decomposing 
within continued this now well established pattern 
—a pattern that stimulated the emotive response 
through the confrontation with the sublime. 

Continually on the move, Hoare experienced 
Europe with its cultivated landscapes cradling the 
ruins of antiquity. He hired the artist Carlo Labruzzi 
to illustrate these journeys and the two travelled 
together in 1789 (Hornsby 2000, 4). The ruins were 
reminders of the process of decay and death within 
a living landscape and the images of Hoare’s 
journeys often strove to portray this relationship 
between the living and their encounter with the 
crumbling past (Figure 6). However, too much of 
an obsession could be unseemly for a true 
gentleman. In writing of antiquity, Hoare had to 
be wary of the heavy criticism levelled against the 
antiquarians’ obsession with death and fascination 
for the inconsequential rubbish of the past. 


INFECTED WITH THE 
MANIA 


With all the ardour and fancy of a zealous antiquary, 
I once fondly thought that here I might discover the 
traces of King Ina’s palace...but on digging into 
several of the banks, as well as into the hollow places, 
I could find no fragments even of stone, or any indicia 
of habitations. (Hoare 1812, 181) 


Starting off on another tour of Wales in April of 
1801, Hoare first visited in the company of the Rev. 
William Coxe a Roman mosaic at Pit Meads where 
William Cunnington was digging (Hoare [1983], 
161). A friend and mentor to Hoare, Coxe was a 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 


ef 12? 3 
REM Sy 


Fig. 6. Frontispiece. Aquatint by C. Labruzzi from an 

album dedicated to Sir Richard Colt Hoare. The figure 

has the ‘gaze of an absorbed traveller reflecting on the 
glories of the ancient ruins’ (Hornsby 2000, 6) 


veteran of the Grand Tour and a member of the 
Society of Antiquaries. Coxe was influential, but it 
was Cunnington who inspired Hoare to become 
‘infected with the mania of antiquarian discovery’ 
(Hoare 1821, 126). Cunnington’s influence both 
as an excavator and as an intellectual partner with 
Hoare has been well documented (see Cunnington 
1975). Cunnington’s strength was his ability to draw 
conclusions. from his diggings and give 
interpretative primacy of his conclusions over pre- 
existing texts. Initially, it seems likely that one of 
the reasons for Hoare’s affinity to Cunnington was 
the ingenious tradesman’s ongoing engagement in 
field pursuits.° 

By the time of this initial meeting with 
Cunnington, Hoare had already been a member of 
the Society of Antiquaries for nine years. Rubbing 
shoulders with Society members, Hoare must have 
been acutely aware of the status of Antiquarians. 
As Francis Grose stated in an antiquarian 
publication in 1775: 


It has long been the fashion to laugh at the study of 
Antiquities, and to consider it as the idle amusement 
of a few humdrum plodding fellows, who, wanting 
genius for nobler studies, busied themselves in 
heaping up illegible Manuscripts, mutilated Statues, 
obliterated Coins, and broken Pipkins! (quoted in 
Jessup 1975, 186-7) (Figure 7) 


The perception of the antiquarian as distastefully 
interested in the morbid fuelled the ridicule. They 
were characterized as a ‘motley crew... deformed 
and deficient’ who loved to ‘poke among the dead... 
to catch sight of their ghoulish subject. Such is their 
engrossment...that they do not recognize the social 


119 


impropriety of their actions’ (Peltz and Myrone 
1999, 2). Complementing this caricature was the 
fetishism for the artefact. From the cabinets of 
curiosities of Ole Worm and the amassing of objects, 
antiquarians were seen as hoarders of meaningless 
trash. Fragments and individual items were the 
trophies to be displayed — the study of these random 
bits of time’s flotsam in the eyes of some critics 
could only produce further rubbish since it was, 
after all, only a study of rubbish (Bending 1999, 
83). Criticising the attention to minutiae, Horace 
Walpole verbally lashed the antiquarian Richard 
Gough (Director of the Society of Antiquaries from 
1767 to 1797): ‘Mr. Gough is apt, as antiquaries 
are, to be impatient to tell the world all he knows, 
which unluckily is much more than the world is at 
all impatient of hearing’ (Sweet 2001, 183). Walpole 
was an ardent critic of antiquarians, stating that 
they ‘always turned into fools’ and were 
“indiscriminately acquisitive, impenetrable to taste, 
‘ridiculous’, and doomed to be ‘dry and dull’ for 
centuries to come’ (quoted in Lolla 1999, 15).’ 


Fig. 7. The Antiquarians. Engraving from Oxford 
Magazine, 1772 


120 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


For the antiquarians, it was a difficult task to 
address this criticism. In large part, their interest in 
minutiae resulted from a different direction - the 
debate between what Piggott has termed ‘the 
Ancients and the Moderns’ (1989, 150). The 
Ancients, or traditionalist men of letters, sought 
knowledge in classical writings and the scriptures 
while the Moderns sought knowledge through the 
‘tradition of empirical investigation of natural and 
artificial phenomena’ (ibid.). For antiquarians of 
the Modern school, written history needed to be 
confirmed against evidence in the field. Gough 
championed this very stance in his Anecdotes of 
British Topography: 


Injudicious and sedentary compilers find it much 
easier to arrange matters put into their own hands 
than to ramble about and to examine every remnant 
of antiquity. Whoever sits down to compile the history 
and antiquities of a county or a town, should confirm 
the evidence he collects from books and manuscripts 
by inspection of places described (quoted in Sweet 
2001, 189). 


Turning away from strict reliance on classic writing, 
the antiquarians needed to concentrate on 
‘minutiae’. However, this response encouraging the 
primacy of artefacts was the fodder of Walpole’s 
criticism. The tedious obsession with artefacts 
opened up antiquarians to the worst possible 
criticism of upper society — that of being dull. 


TO ‘SPEAK FROM FACTS, 
NOT THEORY’ 


It will be my task, therefore, to note down minutely 
what was, and what now is; to throw aside the veil 
from fancy and romance, adhering to my original 
motto, endeavour to ‘speak from facts, not theory’. 
(Hoare 1821, 65) 


In his introduction to Nenia Britannica (1793), 
James Douglas countered this criticism, advocating 
‘Artifacts or “antiquities” were “facts” which when 
properly assembled would yield historical truths, 
compensating for the ‘deficiency of antient records’ 
(ibid., 187). Douglas and Nenia seems to have 
influenced Colt Hoare: ‘A very ingenious and 
elaborate work was published in the year 1793, by 
Mr. Douglas, under the title of NENIA BRITANNICA, 
in which he has detailed, with great perspicuity, the 
researches made by himself and others on this 
subject’ (Hoare 1812, 19). 


Douglas visited Stourhead, and even 
accompanied both Hoare and Cunnington on some 
of the barrow openings in Wiltshire (Marsden 1984, 
12). This contact with Douglas suggests that Nenia 
Britannica was the prototype for Hoare’s Ancient 
Wiltshire (Woodbridge 1970, 227).° Rather than 
being boring, artefacts were ‘facts’, indispensable 
to any intellectual investigation of the past. As 
Douglas elaborated in his introduction to Nenzia: 


No position in the work has been assumed on mere 
conjecture; and when deductions have been made, they 
have been founded on a scrupulous comparison of facts. 
. . the reader may form his own conclusions, without 
the apprehension of being involved in the confusion of 
self-opinionated theory. (quoted in Jessup 1961, 188). 


It is with Douglas’ stance on facts-over-theory that 
the origin of Hoare’s famous motto has been traced 
(Atkinson 1975, xvii). However, this was not a 
simplistic or even necessarily direct connection. 
While it is unclear when Hoare first obtained a copy 
of Nenzia, the two antiquarians did not meet until 
August of 1809 (Jessup 1975, 135). As early as 1726, 
Alexander Gordon, the Secretary to the Society of 
Antiquaries, advocated that ‘Archiology’ had a 
purpose to ‘prove demonstratively those Facts 
which are asserted in History’ (Jessop 1974, 187). 
Indeed, Hoare and Douglas were two agents of 
many within a much wider body of discourse with 
its roots in Baconian inductive reasoning, 
postulating that through patient observation and 
the industrious accumulation of facts, truth would 
become apparent (Smith 1994, 11-24). In the field 
of chemistry, Humphry Davy praised Bacon in 1812 
for teaching ‘Man’ to be ‘capable of discovering truth 
in no other way but by observing... that facts were 
to be collected and not speculations forms; and that 
the materials for the foundation of true systems of 
knowledge were to be discovered not in books of the 
ancients, but in the visible and tangible world’ (ibid., 
14-15). Hoare was certainly versed in these matters: 
his library catalogue lists two collections of books 
written by Francis Bacon (Hoare [1840], 669, 679). 
Against the ridicule of antiquarian obsession with 
artefacts and the appeal by leading antiquaries to 
compare written histories against facts, Hoare met 
Cunnington — already engaged in his own search for 
facts in the field. 


Our object is truth 


As mentioned above, Cunnington was already an 
experienced ‘opener’ of barrows. He had been 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 121 


digging long barrows in collaboration with the 
antiquarian William Coxe (a friend of Colt Hoare) 
and the topographer H.P. Wyndham (Woodbridge 
1970, 196-201). Wyndham was convinced long 
barrows were ‘Battle Barrows’ or ‘receptacles of the 
Bodies slain in Battle’ (1bid., 198). While skeletons 
found in the diggings were enough to convince 
Wyndham, Cunnington remained sceptical 
(Cunnington 1975, 15). 

Originally, Coxe decided to write about the 
antiquities of Wiltshire; through time, Hoare took 
over this role, not without some dispute.’ A wave 
of nationalism in the late-eighteenth century led to 
a profusion of publications on county histories.’° 
Additionally, it was expected that a gentleman 
should be well versed in the art of antiquity. In 1775, 
the Antiquarian Repertory claimed that ‘without a 
competent fund of Antiquarian knowledge no one 
will ever make a respectable figure’ (Sweet 2001, 
188). Colt Hoare was fortuitously in the correct 
social standing to take over the enterprise of funding 
the project and writing the books. However, he was 
caught between different, somewhat contradictory 
social expectations. He could fulfil his role as 
country gentleman by undertaking the project, but 
not in a way that would be open to the ridicule of 
satirists. |! 


Samual Woodfarde 
Afarde RA pine James Basire scalp! 


Fig. 8. Mr. William Cunnington, F.'S.A. of Heytesbury, 
Wilts. Engraving by J. Basire from portrait by S. 
Woodforde (Hoare 1812, frontispiece) 


In a new partnership with Hoare, Cunnington, 
the antiquarian Thomas Leman, the surveyor 
Phillip Crocker, and the father and son duo- 
diggers of Stephen and John Parker, a collaborative 
effort was brought to bear on the antiquities of 
Wiltshire. Hoare financed and directed the 
operation, while Cunnington and the Parkers 
continued in the role of excavators. Initially, 
Thomas Leman was integral in the process. Set 
up as mentor to Hoare, he suggested to 
Cunnington the method of labelling finds and 
recording ‘the very spot in which you found them’ 
to supplement the detailed notes that Cunnington 
was already producing (Cunnington 1975, 21). 
Leman recognized that Cunnington’s information 
produced more ‘light in this very obscure part of 
our antiquities... than the many theoretical 
volumes which have been given to the world’ 
(quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 203). In May of 
1801, Leman (utilising classic Baconian language) 
urged Cunnington to map plans of ancient ‘camps’ 
since there only existed ‘books of theory instead 
of records of facts’ (quoted in Cunnington 1975, 
20). Cunnington’s writings too show he was 
acutely aware ‘theories’ drawn from classical 
sources were ‘ever at war with facts’ found in the 
field (Woodbridge 1970, 203). Despite Leman’s 


Fig. 9. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, Bart. of Stourhead, 
Wilts. Engraving by H. Meyer from painting by H. 
Edridge. (Hoare 1821, frontispiece) 


122 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


interest in facts, he was a man of learning who 
preferred to take the role of theoretical ‘mentor’ to 
his ‘pupils’ (ibid., 202-3). Tension arose between 
Leman’s preconceptions juxtaposed against field 
observations: this became a concern to both Colt 
Hoare and Cunnington. Hoare’s terminology 
reiterated Baconian principles, ‘Our object is Truth’, 
so ‘in this curious investigation we must form no 
previous systen? and without the pick-axe ‘nothing 
positive’ would be ascertained (ibid., 214-5). 
However, the truth was that without a pre-defined 
‘system’ Hoare had no analytical means to interpret 
Cunnington’s accumulating ‘facts’. Despite his 
desire for objectivity, Hoare compared 
Cunnington’s reports to Leman’s theories. This 
inconsistency irked Cunnington: ‘You recommend 
that when I take the field I leave all my systems at 
home & at the same time you recommend me to a 
system of Mr.Leman’s — which system IJ had from 
him some years ago’ (ibid., 215). As time 
progressed, this flow of discourse influenced Hoare 
to disregard Leman’s theories, urging Cunnington 
to remain ‘perfectly unbiased, and to judge only 
from certain proof’ (ibid.). 

It is important to realize that the ultimate goal 
of their ‘curious investigation’ was to produce a 
book. In Hoare’s need to speak from facts, the visual 
appearance and composition of both volumes of 
Ancient Wiltshire purposefully emphasizes the 
pursuit of facts. Plates depicting Hoare and 
Cunnington associated them with materials 
representative of recording. Cunnington is 
portrayed holding a field-sketch of Stonehenge 
(Figure 8), while Hoare sits at his desk in his 
Stourhead library (Figure 9). Books on the shelves 
display the authority of the written past and 
Hoare’s access to them, while the Stonehenge Urn 
and the beaker on the desk reflect his authority on 
the material of the past. He is depicted as if 
momentarily interrupted from editing the proofs 
of Ancient Wiltshire — a man both in command of 
the past and any contemporary knowledge of it. In 
effect, Hoare displays himself as master of both the 
Ancients’ literary authority and the Moderns’ 
conviction in the artefact. 

This portrayal of Hoare engaged in recording 
was nothing new. In the Italian Tours of 1789, 
Labruzzi often sketched in Hoare directing 
Labruzzi at the ruins (Hornsby 2000, 3-5). In a 
1795 Woodforde portrait of Hoare with his son, 
Hoare is shown next to a classical pillar, gazing into 
the distance, a picturesque drawing in one hand 
and portfolio in the other (Figure 10). 


Fig. 10. Sir Richard Colt Hoare aged 37 and his son 
aged 11. Portrait by S. Woodforde. Stourhead, The 
Hoare Collection (The National Trust) National Trust 
Photo Library/John Hammond 


Love of order 


The use of the survey was an important technique 
employed by Hoare. With the surveyor Phillip 
Crocker, Hoare brought the entire Wiltshire 
landscape into order. It was the time for just such 
an undertaking. With enclosure increasing and the 
legal needs for accurate recording of boundaries 
intensified because of new property laws, surveying 
became ever more important in the later eighteenth 
century (Richeson 1966, 145).The use of imperfect 
maps during the 1747 military campaigns in 
Scotland was also a prime factor in the creation of 
the Ordnance Survey (Phillips 1980, 2).!* Crocker, 
his brother Edmund and their father, Abraham, 
worked on the first edition map of Wiltshire 
published in 1801. Colt Hoare was able to take 
advantage of the resultant new-found accuracy in 
recording and worked closely with Crocker in the 
field (see Woodbridge 1970, 212-3) to produce the 
many maps and plans that eventually were an. 
integral part of Ancient Wiltshire. This topographic 
work, for its time, was hailed in the Quarterly 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 123 


Review of 1811 as ‘perhaps unrivalled’ (Woodbridge 
1970, 231).' Bird’s-eye views of large landscapes 
included district maps, which were subdivided into 
Stations (Figure 1), followed by more detailed plans 
mapping the ‘environs’ of Stonehenge and Avebury. 
The next scale contained plans of earthworks such 
as ‘British villages’ (Figure 11) and oblique views 
of barrow cemeteries (Figure 12) with each barrow 
numbered and related to the accompanying text. 


Fig. 11. Grovely Works. Engraving by J. Basire from 
drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1812) 


Complementing the maps and plans were 
occasional eye-level drawings of monuments and 
the surrounding landscape (Figure 13). 
Reconstructions (Figure 4) and plans of both 
Stonehenge and ‘Abury’ were presented as well as 
three plates depicting Hoare’s series of barrow- 
types. Finally, tumuli plates illustrated groups of 
artefacts (Figure 14), each of which could be 
correlated back to the numbered barrows. With this 
method, Hoare was able to present visualizations 


Fig. 12. Barrows at Winterborne Stoke West Group. 
Engraving by J. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker 
(Hoare 1812) 


of his sweeping landscape narratives while 
integrating artefacts with the descriptive accounts 
of individual barrow-openings. 

As a finished product, the most enduring quality 
of Ancient Wiltshire is the numerous high-quality 
plates of the artefacts recovered from Cunnington 
and Hoare’s diggings. Again, Hoare was on the 
cutting edge of a technology in which he had 
extensive experience. As already discussed, he was 
an illustrator and sometimes made initial sketches 
for other artists to complete. Perhaps modelling his 
plates on those of Douglas, he drew on a tradition 
that ultimately had its root in the identification of 
fossils, plants and elements of the animal kingdom. 
The search for ‘new and more objective principles 
of classification’ prompted improved reproduced 
representation (Thomas 1983, 65). The visual 
identification of medicinal plants was increasingly 
important as the drawing was replacing verbal 


Fig. 13. A distant View of Abury, and the Kennet 
Avenue, from Hackpen Hill. Engraving by G. Cooke 
from drawing by P. Crocker (Hoare 1821, PI. 15, no. 1) 


124 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 14. Tumuli. Plate XIII. Winterborne Stoke. 
Engraving by J. Basire from drawing by P. Crocker. 
This plate corresponds to the Winterborne Stoke, West 
Group, Barrow 5 (Hoare 1812, PI. 13) 


description (Piggott 1978, 27). In Ancient Wiltshire, 
the layout of the ‘tumuli’ plates is invariably 
symmetrical, the composition balanced and even 
(Figure 14). Beads strung together frame other 
artefacts. Neither the dirt of the barrows nor the 
barrows themselves are shown. Abstracted from the 
context of the barrows, the artefacts are ordered — 
any ambiguity of their context is removed. The 
plates of Ancient Wiltshire imply control and 
ultimately understanding. They are facts there to 
be seen. 

At about the same time as the publication of 
Ancient Wiltshire, Goethe bemoaned how ‘the 
chaotic condition’ of an antiquarian collection was 
stored ‘without any methodological sensibility or 
love of order’ (Crane 1999, 193). The antiquarian 
illustration presented this very ‘love of order’ that 
Goethe advocated — this in effect denied the 
fragmentary nature of antiquity and the absence of 
clarity that the narratives such as Hoare’s struggled 
with. As Smiles states, ‘It is this lack that antiquarian 
illustration supplies, its very clarity and determinacy 


of image offering a coherent knowledge that the 
narrative it is presumed to supplement cannot 
produce’ (1999, 63). 

In this sense the display of the artefacts justified 
the effort to acquire them; they validated the 
antiquarian pursuit, as did their ordering. The past, 
which could not be comprehended, could at least 
be sensibly and visibly organised. The antiquarian 
illustration ‘provided iconic illustrations of the past 
which stood in place of the obscure record with 
which historians wrestled, that they were 
constitutive of knowledge rather than representative 
of it’ (Smiles 1999, 57). In Colt Hoare’s seemingly 
endless narratives of the barrow excavations 
combined with the numerous and detailed plates, 
the sheer bulk of evidence presented the full weight 
of empirical knowledge. Colt Hoare had more than 
any of the classical writers ever had — he had facts 
and plenty of them. 


Bibliomania 


Facts proved not to be enough. Hoare voraciously 
purchased books full of the theories he admonished. 
Adding to his already impressive collection, Hoare 
poured more funds into his self-described 
‘Bibliomania’ (Hoare [1840], vii). His Stourhead 
library was a marvel to visitors. John Skinner, an 
antiquarian who would later work with Hoare on 
the opening of the Stony Littleton long barrow, 
commented: 


Indeed, I believe there is not a library in the kingdom 
so well supplied in these subjects as that at Stourhead, 
since not only all the public records of Domesday 
and the Tower, but every private collection is so 
admirably arranged that Sir Richard can put his hand 
on the minutest book at a moment’s notice. (quoted 
in Woodbridge 1970, 260). 


Pouring through the works of Pliny, Caesar, Tacitus, 
Camden, Aubrey, Stukeley, and just about every 
relevant writer imaginable, Hoare nevertheless 
despairingly wrote to Cunnington ‘TI have read a 
great deal this winter — of ancient times & lore but 
am sorry to say, the more I read, the more I am 
bewildered’ (ibid., 224). His pages of Ancient 
Wiltshire are loaded with lengthy references, 
probably in response to Gough’s admonishments 
to antiquarians to quote in full when referencing 
(see Sweet 2001, 189). 

In the first volume of Ancient Wiltshire, written 
before Cunnington’s death, Hoare balanced 
landscape narrative, details of barrow openings, and 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 125 


references to other writers more adeptly than in 
the second volume. After Cunnington’s death, the 
barrow-digging came to an almost complete end. 
This is reflected in the second volume as only one 
tumuli plate was published. To compensate for the 
lack of fieldwork, Hoare turned to Stukeley and, 
inevitably, to the Druids. 


From Druids to British to Druids 


Hoare’s journal entries during his tours of Wales, 
England and Ireland give insight into the changes 
that occurred within his thinking through his 
exposure to contemporary antiquarian culture. It 
is obvious from his writing that before his 
association with the antiquarians of Wiltshire (and 
in particular Cunnington) he viewed British 
antiquity from a more picturesque, Druidical, and 
even ‘fanciful’ perspective. In June of 1793, well 
before his involvement with Wiltshire antiquities, 
he wrote that a site at St David’s head in South 
Wales was a ‘Druidical monument’ where the 
picturesque setting was suited for ‘Druidical 
mysteries’, imagining that the rock outcroppings 
formed ‘the perfect profile of a venerable old head 
such as I could have fancied a Druid’s character’ 
(Hoare [1983], 48). In June of 1800 he described 
the Castlerigg stone circle in Cumbria as a ‘perfect 
Druidical circle’ and Long Meg in similar terms a 
few days later (ibid., 132, 137). He certainly had 
been influenced by Stukeley’s writings by this time 
for at Mayburgh Henge Hoare speculated “perhaps 
it might have been used as a circus for chariot races 
and the stones were the metae or goals’ (ibid., 136), 
a comment echoing Stukeley’s ideas regarding the 
function of the Stonehenge cursus. 

Six years later, after his initial involvement with 
Wiltshire antiquarians, Hoare’s terminology reflects 
his changing views of ancient monuments. At 
Newgrange (Figure 15) Hoare states ‘conjecture 
may wander over its wild and spacious domains, 
but will never bring home with it either truth or 
convictions’ (Hoare 1807, 257). On a return visit 
to Wales in 1810, the Druids are omitted from his 
journal entries. Megalithic monuments are called 
‘British remains’ (Hoare [1983], 256). On the 
mountain of Carn Madryn, he comments that the 
hili ‘abounds in British remains; numerous cyttiau, 
circles, carneddau etc etc ascertain its high 
antiquity...’ (ibid., 264). Again, at Anglesey, visiting 
Bryn Celli Ddu and other megaliths, he never refers 
to the monuments as Druidical, only British (ibid., 
268). 


Reflecting this attitude in the first volume of 
Ancient Wiltshire (the first section of which was 
published in 1810), Hoare rarely mentions Druids. 
Instead, he calls the population of pre-Roman 
Britain simply ‘British’ as he had in the journal 
entries noted above. After Cunnington’s death, it 
took over a decade to publish the second volume 
(1821). In the ‘Recapitulation’ at the end of this 
second volume, Druids are reintroduced as Hoare 
becomes convinced that ‘such places as Abury, 
Marden, Stonehenge, Rowlritch, and Stanton 
Drew, together with many others of minor celebrity, 
were the loci consecrati set apart for the civil as 
well as religious purposes, but not, according to 
vulgar error, built by the Druids, but rather for 
them’ (Hoare 1821, 121-2). 

In the end, unable to speak from only facts, he 
frames his interpretations from classic sources and 
the influence of Stukeley: the Druids once again 
people the landscapes of prehistoric Wiltshire. In 
the conclusion, Hoare softens his bold motto, ‘facts 


Fig. 15. Subterraneous Temple in the County of 
Meath. Engraving by W. Newton from drawing by Sir 
Richard Colt Hoare (Hoare i807, frontispiece). By 
permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University 
Library 


126 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


have been sufficiently evident, as to speak for 
themselves’ by conceding that ‘conjecture... on 
treating so remote an age... might, in some degree, 
be allowable’ (ibid., 127). 


CONCLUSION 


It is easy to judge Colt Hoare’s Baconian quest a 
failure. In his effort to speak from facts he invariably 
interprets them through the theory of others. Most 
of his conclusions have been superseded by 
subsequent archaeological interpretation, his 
methods are now denigrated, and his only enduring 
contribution has been said to be the invention of 
the precursor of the trowel adopted by modern 
excavators (Piggott 1989, 155-6). However, it can 
be argued that Colt Hoare was engaged within a 
complexity of sometimes incongruent cultural and 
individual facets, a complexity which is reflected in 
Ancient Wiltshire. Deeply affecting his work was a 
contemporary dispute in how to approach the past. 
Ancient Wiltshire can best be understood as a 
negotiation of that dispute. Hoare skilfully 
facilitated a wide group of personalities: he 
continued expressing his sense of the picturesque 
and the sublime while simultaneously incorporating 
the facts discovered. His best work was his 
manipulation of the technology of visual 
reproduction, especially in the survey plates. Hoare’s 
ability to construct narratives negotiating multiple 
scales has been under-appreciated by antiquarian 
scholars. The antiquarians turned to science for 
legitimisation, but in the process they began 
gradually to lose the landscape narratives that Colt 
Hoare was so effective at delivering as archaeology 
became more site-specific. The antiquarian 
imagination eventually gave way to the dominance 
of science, but some of the essentials of this conflict 
still echo in the debate between modern 
processualists and post-processualists. In the 
approach to typology, the aesthetic of the artefact 
has largely been abandoned. In the clinical 
requirements for accuracy, the personal 
confrontation with the sublime has been written 
out of the record. In the quest for objective facts, 
zeal or enthusiasm has often been sacrificed. The 
great achievement of Colt Hoare’s work is that he 
combined reason with aesthetics, facts with 
emotion. He was able, however imperfectly, to 
commingle a quest for some kind of factual 
knowledge of the past with his own experiential 
encounter and communicate a sense of enjoyment 
that, in the end, seemed to make it all worthwhile. 


In May of 1806, Crocker wrote to Cunnington 
describing a celebration during the opening of - 
barrows at Everleigh with ‘Sir Richard’ and an 
assortment of antiquarians, topographers, and 
others. Amidst the fruit, sparkling wine and the ever- 
present pick-axe ‘stood the relicks of 2000 years’ 
while the group toasted the ‘Britons’ with ‘all the 
enthusiasm of true Antiquaries’ (Woodbridge 1970, 
217). For no doubt everyone involved including Sir 
Richard, the whole affair was, ‘a feast of reason and 
a flow of sou? (ibid.). 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would like to thank John Collis for the guidance 
he provided through the early drafts of this paper 
and Nikki Delpino-Mark for our lively 
conversations. Thanks also to Christopher 
Chippindale, Mark Gillings, Joshua Pollard, Julia 
Roberts and an anonymous reader for their helpful 
and invaluable remarks. Some of the research for 
this paper was undertaking as part of an honorary 
fellowship with the National Centre for the English 
Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield. 


Notes 


1. As Hoare himself stated in his diaries, he wanted to 
“give an account of all the antiquities that are within 
reach of [a Station] in a morning’s ride’ (quoted in 
Cunnington 1975, 135). 

2. Hoare was interested in Rousseau’s writings, especially 
La Nouvelle Heloise (1760). In Hoare’s Recollections 
(1815 to 1818) he writes, ‘Heavy objections have 
certainly been made to the morality of his book; but 
its beauties are so natural, so bewitching, and so 
congenial to the feeling heart, that in the 
contemplation of his excellencies I overlook his 
defects’ (quoted in Woodbridge 1970, 108). 

3. The physical-sensory connection between the outer 
environment and the inner mind operated along ‘the 
fibres’ or nerves: ‘It was commonly believed that 
sensation is caused by vibration of the nerves or by 
vibration of minute particles along the nerves’, thus 
the human reaction to stimuli was universal 
(Sambrook 1993, 143). 

4. As Hoare was rarely present at the barrow openings, 
he relied almost exclusively on Cunnington’s specially 
bound manuscripts detailing the contents of the 
barrows (see Cunnington 1954: 23-5). 

5. This quote is from Hoare’s posthumous Memorr, stated 
to have been ‘Partly written by Himself’ (Hoare 
[1840], i). 

6. As evidenced by letters in 1798 to John Britton (who 
was writing The Beauties of Wiltshire) Cunnington 


THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTIQUARIANISM OF SIR RICHARD COLT HOARE 127 


had dug at Stonehenge (with a stick) and other sites 
well before meeting Hoare (Woodbridge 1970, 195). 

7. Walpole also heavily criticised The Society of the 
Dilettanti (or the Grand Tour club), of which Colt 
Hoare was also a member. As Walpole observed 
concerning gaining admittance to the Society: ‘the 
nominal qualification was having been to Italy, and 
the real one being drunk’ (Sambrook 1993, 207). 

8. When Douglas died in 1819 his collection passed to 
Colt Hoare, who donated it to the Ashmolean 
Museum, Oxford (Marsden 1984, 12). 

9.In November 1803, Coxe said Hoare had gone ‘barrow 
mad’. By April 1804 Hoare was happy to have 
removed ‘the business of exploring out of my friend 
Coxe’s hands’ (Woodbridge 1970, 209). 

10. Patriotism, public service and construction of national 
identities, themes of late eighteenth-century Britain 
(Sweet 2001, 181), were reinforced by the island’s 
isolation (Reusch 1999: 95) and conflict on the 
continent (Thompson 1983, 14) —all prompted anti- 
quarian interest closer to home including publication. 

11. Sweet argues: ‘*...antiquarianism was a pervasive and 
essential constituent of the contemporary pursuit of 
art and literature, rather than a recondite pastime that 
stagnated in ditchwater prose. For this reason, the 
institutionalized study of antiquarianism had always 
to maintain a delicate balance between scholarship 
and taste.’ (Sweet 2001, 183) 

12. There also was an element in nationalist pride/ 
competition in connecting the English survey with 
the French survey in “The Great Triangulation at 
Hounslow Heath’. Thus, improved surveying was 
motivated by ‘political, scientific, and practical 
considerations’ (Richeson 1966, 175-7). 

13. Hoare was even consulted by the Ordnance Survey 
in later years and corrected some of their mistakes 
(Piggott 1976, 128). The OS maps to which Crocker 
and Hoare contributed ‘remained unrivalled’ until 
after 1920 (Phillips 1980, 8). 


Bibliography 


ATKINSON, R.J.C. 1975, ‘Introduction’, in R.H. 
Cunnington, From Antiquary to Archaeologist: A 
Biography of William Cunnington 1754-1810. 
Aylesbury: Shire 

BENDING, S. 1999, “The true rust of the Barons’ Wars: 
gardens, ruins and the national landscape’, in M. 
Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: 
Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700- 
1850, 83-94. Cambridge: Ashgate 

BUCHANAN, A. 1999, ‘Science and sensibility: 
architectural antiquarianism in the early nineteenth 
century’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing 
the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 
1700-1850, 169-186. Cambridge: Ashgate 

CRANE, S.A. 1999, ‘Story, history and the passionate 


collector’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing 
the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 
1700-1850, 187-204. Cambridge: Ashgate 

CUNNINGTON, R.H. 1954, The Cunningtons of 
Wiltshire. WANHM 55, 211-236 

CUNNINGTON, R.H. 1975, From Antiquary to 
Archaeologist: A Biography of William Cunnington 
1754-1810. Aylesbury: Shire 

DANIEL, G. 1981, A Short History of Archaeology. 
London: Thames and Hudson 

FLAXMAN, R.L. 1987, Victorian word painting and 
narrative: Toward a blending of genres. Ann Arbor: 
UMI Research Press 

HAYCOCK, D. 1999, “A small journey into the country’: 
William Stukeley and the formal landscapes of 
Stonehenge and Avebury’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz 
(eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian 
Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 67-82. Cambridge: 
Ashgate 

HOARE, R.C. 1807, A tour in Ireland. London: William 
Savage 

HOARE, R.C. 1812, The Ancient History of South 
Wiltshire. London: William Miller 

HOARE, R.C. 1814, Tour through the island of Elba. 
London: J. Murray 

HOARE, R.C. 1821, The Ancient History of North 
Wiltshire. London: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, 
Mavor and Jones 

HOARE, R.C. [1840]. Catalogue of the Hoare Library 
at Stourhead. London: Nichols and Son 

HOARE, R.C. [1983], The Journey of Sir Richard Colt 
Hoare: through Wales and England 1793-1810. 
Edited by M.W. Thompson. Gloucester: Sutton 

HORNSBY, C. 2000, Carlo Labruzzi: an album of 
thirteen aquatints dedicated to Sir Richard Colt 
Hoare. Apollo Magazine, March, 3-8 

JESSUP, R. 1974, Curiosities of British Archaeology. 
London: Butterworths 

JESSUP, R. 1975, Man of many talents: an informal 
biography of James Douglas 1753-1819. London: 
Phillimore 

MACLENNAN, H. 1999, ‘Antiquarianism, connoisseur- 
ship and the Northern Renaissance print: new 
collecting cultures in the early nineteenth century’, 
in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: 
Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700- 
1850, 149-168. Cambridge: Ashgate 

MARSDEN, B.M. 1984, Pioneers of Prehistory: Leaders 
and landmarks in English archaeology (1500-1900). 
Ormskirk: Hesketh 

MARSDEN, B.M. 1999, The Early Barrow Diggers. 
Stroud: Tempus 

MITCHELL, J. 1982, Megalithomania: Artists, 
Antiquarians and Archaeologists at the Old Stone 
Monuments. London: Thames and Hudson 

MYRONE, M. 1999, ‘Graphic antiquarianism in 
eighteenth-century Britain: the career and reputation 
of George Verture’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), 


128 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture 
and Practice 1700-1850, 15-34. Cambridge: Ashgate 

PELTZ, L. 1999, ‘The extra-illustration of London: the 
gendered spaces and practices of antiquarianism in 
the late eighteenth century’, in M. Myrone and L. 
Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: Aspects of 
Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700-1850, 115- 
134. Cambridge: Ashgate 

PELTZ, L. and MYRONE, M. 1999, ‘Introduction: 
“Mine are the subjects reflected by the historian’: 
antiquarianism, history and the making of modern 
culture’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing 
the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 
1700-1850, 1-14. Cambridge: Ashgate 

PHILLIPS, C.W. 1980, Archaeology in the Ordnance 
Survey 1791-1965. London: Council for British 
Archaeology 

PIGGOTT, S. 1976, Ruins in a Landscape: Essays in 
Antiquarianism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 
Press 

PIGGOTT, S. 1978, Antiquity Depicted: Aspects of 
Archaeological Illustration. London: Thames and 
Hudson 

PIGGOTT, S. 1989, Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian 
Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the 
Regency. London: Thames and Hudson 

REUSCH, J.J.K. 1999, ‘Caspar David Friedrich and 
national antiquarianism in Northern Germany’, in 
M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), Producing the Past: 
Aspects of Antiquarian Culture and Practice 1700- 
1850, 95-114. Cambridge: Ashgate 

RICHESON, A.W. 1966, English Land Measuring to 
1800: Instruments and Practices. Cambridge (MA): 


MIT Press 

SAMBROOK, J. 1993, The Eighteenth Century: The ° 
Intellectual and Cultural Context of English 
Literature 1700-1789. Longman: Harlow 

SCHNAPP, A. 2002, Between antiquarians and 
archaeologists — continuities and ruptures. Antiquity 
76, 134-140 

SMILES, S. 1999, ‘British antiquity and antiquarian 
illustration’, in M. Myrone and L. Peltz (eds), 
Producing the Past: Aspects of Antiquarian Culture 
and Practice 1700-1850, 35-54. Cambridge: Ashgate 

SMITH, J. 1994, Fact and Feeling: Baconian Science 
and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. 
Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press 

SWEET, R. 2001, Antiquaries and Antiquities in 
Eighteenth-Century England. Eighteenth-Century 
Studies 34(2), 181-206 

THOMAS, K. 1983, Man and the Natural World: 
Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: 
Allen Lane 

THOMPSON, M.W. 1983, ‘Introduction’, in R.C. Hoare, 
The Journey of Sir Richard Colt Hoare: through Wales 
and England 1793-1810. Edited by M.W. Thompson. 
Gloucester: Sutton 

TRIGGER, B.G. 1989, A History of Archaeological 
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

VOLLER, J.G. 1994, The Supernatural Sublime: The 
Metaphysics of Terror in Anglo-American 
Romanticism. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University 
Press 

WOODBRIDGE, K. 1970, Landscape and Antiquity: 
Aspects of English Culture at Sourhead 1718 to 1838. 
Oxford: Clarendon 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 129-136 


Spiders of the Family Tetragnathidae (Araneae) 


in Wiltshire 
by Martin Askins 


Thirteen spiders of the family Tetragnathidae have been recorded from Wiltshire. Each species is described 
with its habitat preferences and a map showing its distribution in the county. 


In the UK four families of spiders contain species 
that weave cartwheel-shaped ‘orb’ webs, the 
Uloboridae, Theridiosomatidae, Tetragnathidae and 
the Araneidae. The members of the Uloboridae are 
uncommon or rare and none has yet been recorded 
in Wiltshire, though there is the likelihood that the 
alien species Uloborus plumipes will be found in 
garden centres (Harvey, Nellist and Telfer, 2002)). 
Theridiosoma gemmosum, the only member of the 
Theridiosomatidae to occur in the UK, was recently 
found in Wiltshire (Askins, 1999). The Araneidae 
is probably the more familiar family to most people 
as it contains Araneus diadematus, the common 
garden cross spider. This note considers the 
probably less familiar Tetragnathidae. The known 
distributions and habitat preferences of the 
Tetragnathids in Wiltshire are described. 


TETRAGNATHIDAE 


In general the UK members of the Tetragnathidae 
are orb-web weavers. In comparison with other orb 
weaving families the Tetragnathidae tend to have 
long legs relative to the body; the genus Tetragnatha 
and to some extent the other genera have elongated 
bodies. The legs are furnished with hairs and spines 
but finer or less densely distributed in comparison 


_ with some of the other families. In addition the 


genitalia are relatively simple. In the UK the orb 
webs are generally of a looser weave with a more 
open hub than those of the Araneidae (Fig.1). 


Fig. 1. Metellina web 


The genus Tetragnatha 

The spiders of the genus Tetragnatha (‘four-jawed’ 
spiders) are elongate orb-weavers (Fig.2). Their 
generic name is derived from the large chelicerae, 
armed with substantial fangs, which the members 
of the genus sport. Besides being used in feeding, 
these jaws are brought into play during mating when 
the male interlocks his fangs with the female’s, a 
ritual based on the male’s need to ensure that the 
female does not attack him (Bristowe, 1958). If 
undisturbed at the right time of day, these spiders 
can be found sitting in the centre of their webs, 
waiting for prey. If disturbed they either drop from 
the web (to return later, via their dragline) or move 
to the side of the web where they hide themselves 
by stretching out their legs along, and aligning their 
body with, a supporting stalk or blade of grass. 


69 Savill Crescent, Wroughton, Swindon SN4 9JG 


130 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


The spiders have a single generation per year 
and are adult in spring and summer. Unlike the 
Philodromids (Askins, 2002) the females do not 
mature noticeably later in the year than the males 
though they do persist longer (Figs. 4, 7, 8, 11). 


Fig.2. Tetragnatha female 


The eggs of Tetragnathids are deposited on a surface 
away from the web. Once laid, the eggs are covered 
with silk and the female then disguises the surface 


a . — Vs a 


Fig.3. Tetragnatha egg cocoon 


of this with darker silk or nearby particles (dirt or 
even pine needles). These cocoons can mimic bird 
droppings quite well (Fig. 3). 


Tetragnatha extensa (Linnaeus, 1758) 
National status: Common and widespread. 

This is a common spider whose typical habitat 
is woodland clearings, beaten from trees, shrubs, 
low herbage generally in damper regions than the 


Relative numbers 


JFMAM J JA S O-N_D 
Month 


Fig. 5. Records for T. extensa in Wiltshire 


other members of the genus apart from T? striata. 
The clustering of records on the heavier clay soils 
of the county is indicative of this with the records 
often being close to watercourses. 


THE SPIDERS OF THE FAMILY TETRAGNATHIDAE (ARANEABE) IN WILTSHIRE U3il 


Tetragnatha montana Simon, 1874 
National status: Common and widespread, 
becoming scattered in the north. 


. 
+ 
“= 


i 


Fig. 6. Records for T. montana in Wiltshire 


-|@Males | 
Females } 


oS 
i 


o 
N 


Relative numbers 


dR MM AM: J do AS) @ oN 
Month 


Fig. 7. T. Montana adult activity | 


This is the most common species of the genus 
and probably to be found in practically every tetrad 
in the county. It favours a wide range of habitats 
including woodland, gardens, hedgerows, scrub, 
and long grass. 


_ Tetragnatha nigrita Lendl, 1886 
National status: An uncommon species with a 
southern bias to its distribution. 

In Wiltshire the species is uncommon to scarce 
and was first recorded in 1994. It is a darker than 


Relative numbers 


Fig. 9. Records for T. nigrita in Wiltshire 


the other members of the genus and is generally 
beaten from trees or dense hedgerows. It is not 
necessarily associated with waterside habitats 
though most of the Wiltshire records are, including 
Upper Waterhay Meadows and riversides at 
Cricklade and Knook. 


Tetragnatha obtusa C.L.Koch, 1837 
National status: Locally common, widespread but 
becoming rare in Scotland. 

Until recently there were very few records of 
this species from Wiltshire. However, examination 
of evergreens, especially yews, in churchyards in 
2001 produced several new sites throughout the 


132 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


county. Further searching in these locations will 
probably yield more records in the future. 


MiMales = | 
OFemales | 


Relative numbers 


et 
No 


JF M A Med aJ-ASS GO ND 
Month 


Fig. 11. T. obtusa adult activity 


Tetragnatha pinicola L.Koch, 1870 
National status: Scarce (Notable B) and local, more 
common in the south of the country. 

A smaller animal than the other members of 
the genus (with a body length of about 5mm in 
comparison with the other species of up to about 
10mm), it is otherwise similar to T? extensa. Both 
animals have a dark-bordered sternum with a clear 
patch reaching from the centre of the sternum 
forward (Fig.12) (the sternum is the plate on the 
ventral surface of the part of the body surrounded 
by the legs). This species is found along rides and 


Fig.12. T. pinicola male 


clearings in woods where it can be swept from the 
vegetation or beaten from trees. It was first found 
in Wiltshire in Green Lane Wood in June 2000. 
However, it has been known from Somerset and 
Hampshire for some time and may well be found 
in other woods in Wiltshire — areas of Savernake 
Forest, for example, should provide a suitable 
habitat. 


Fig. 13. Records for T. pinicola in Wiltshire 


Tetragnatha striata L.Koch, 1862 
National status: Scarce (Notable B), widespread but 
very local. 

This species is found over water, where it builds 
its web in stiffly structured vegetation such as reeds. 
In Wiltshire recent records have been from the 


THE SPIDERS OF THE FAMILY TETRAGNATHIDAE (ARANEAE) IN WILTSHIRE 133 


Cotswold Water Park and on the river Wylye at 
Knook. The first occurrence of this species in the 
county was reported by T: Savory in 1946 apparently 
on the basis of a record made by Dauntsey’s School 
Natural History Society. 


Fig. 14. Records for T. striata in Wiltshire 


The genus Pachygnatha 

In appearance the members of the Pachygnatha 
(‘thick-jawed’ spiders) are much less elongated and 
more robust than the Tetragnatha. These spiders 
do make orb-webs, as the members of the other 
genera do, but only as juvenile spiders when they 
build their webs low down in the vegetation in the 
field layer. When they mature they give up web 
building for capturing prey and rely on active 
hunting (Bristowe, 1958). Adults can be found 


— 


Fig. 15. P. clercki male 


throughout the year, but are more active from spring 
to autumn. 


Pachygnatha clercki Sundevall, 1823 
National status: Relatively common and 
widespread, but local. 

P. clercki occurs in damper habitats than the other 
two members of the genus favouring bogs or marshes 
and the edges of ponds, rivers and streams where it 
can be found by grubbing about in, or sweeping lower 
vegetation. The sites on the accompanying map are 
either clustered on the clay soils of the county or 
along river courses. The spiders are probably adult 
throughout the year; the lack of records in winter in 


o 


Relative numbers 


JFmMAM J JAS ON D 
Month 


| Fig.16. P. clercki adult activity | 


Fig. 17. Records for P. clercki in Wiltshire 


134 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


the activity plot reflects lack of recording effort as 
well as lower spider numbers. 


numbers 


e 


Relativ' 


JFMAM J J AS ON D 
Month 


Fig. 18. P. degeeri adult activity 


Fig. 19. Records for P. degeeri 


Pachygnatha degeeri Sundevall, 1830 
National status: Very common and widespread but 
with a scattered distribution in Scotland. 

P. degeeri is by far the most common of the 
genus and can be found by ‘grubbing about’ or 
sweeping low vegetation in a wide range of habitats 
from woodland clearings and sides of paths, to 
grassland, quarries and even household detritus. 
‘The common factor appears to be that this spider 
is found in more humid microhabitats. As with P. 
clercki, the adults can be found throughout the year, 
mainly in the summer. 


Pachygnatha listeri Sundevall, 1830 _ 
National status: Local and uncommon. Widespread. 
This species, unlike the other two of the genus, 
is much more restricted in its habitat requirement, 
generally only occurring in well-established or 
ancient deciduous and mixed woodlands. Most, if 
not all of the sites where it has been found in 
Wiltshire are ancient woods. It can be found by 
sweeping or grubbing about in the lower regions of 
the undergrowth, often in damper areas of the wood. 
Adults can be found all year, but mostly in late 
spring/ early summer and late summer/ autumn. 


Fig.20. Records for P. listeri 


The genera Metellina and Meta 
The members of these two genera are very similar 
and have previously been included in one genus. 
Unlike the Tetragnatha and the Pachygnatha, these 
spiders do not have noticeably modified jaws (Fig. 
2ili)i 


Metellina mengei (Blackwall, 1869) 
National status: Very common and widespread. 
This species is found in a wide range of habitats 
as long as some structure is available for it to build 
its orb web including hedgerows, woodland, scrub, 
gardens, low vegetation with long grass and isolated 
shrubs on grassland or heath. It is very similar to 
M. segmentata from which it was accepted as a 
separate species in the UK only in 1974 (Lockett, 
Millidge and Merrett,1974). Prior to this it was 
described as a subspecies. Close examination of the 
genitalia is required to distinguish the two species 
(especially the females); another fairly consistent 


THE SPIDERS OF THE FAMILY TETRAGNATHIDAE (ARANEAE) IN WILTSHIRE 135 


Fig. 21. M. segmentata female 


character is their period of maturity; M. menget is 
adult in the spring and early summer, M. 
segmentata in the summer through to the autumn 
(though some overlap does occur). This is clearly 
shown in the activity plots (Figs. 23 and 27). 


Fig. 22. Records for M. mengei 


Metellina merianae (Scopoli, 1763) 
National status: Common and widespread. 

This species is perhaps less common than the 
other members of the genus, but its habitat 


rs 


B 


S 
to 


numb 


lative 


Re 
o 


JR MA IM ad JA, S 20) NED 
hionth 


Fig. 23. M. mengei adult activity 


preference makes it less likely to be recorded. Ii 
prefers damper and more shaded microhabitats that 
the others of this genus, for example, drainage 
conduits, hollow boles of trees and under fallen 
trunks or more heavily shaded, inner regions of 
bushes and hence there are relatively few records 


of it from the downland. 
Males | 
OFernales | 


els 


Relative numb 


JEM TA Ma AS OF NAD 
Month 


Fig.24. M. merianae adult activity 


Metellina segmentata (Clerck, 1757) 
National status: Very common and widespread. 

Found in similar habitats to M. menge1 but later 
in the year. This species is probably as common 
and widespread as M. mengei. The fewer records 
in comparison with M. mengei are explained by its 
shorter and later season of maturity. Both of these 
factors mean that fewer days are available for 
recording this species. 

The egg cocoon of this species and M. menge1 
are small spherical spheres, about 5mm in diameter, 
of white woolly silk enclosing the orange-pink eggs. 
The cocoon is placed, hidden from view, near the web. 


136 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig.26. Records for M. segmentata 


Meta menardi (Latreille, 1804) 
National status: Local, with a patchy but widespread 
distribution. 

This species is found in cool, enclosed, dark, 
damp habitats, such as caves, cellars or drains. The 
egg cocoon is large, white and tear-shaped and hung 
from the roof by a silk stalk. It is likely that the lack 
of Wiltshire records reflects the fact that such spaces 
are infrequently examined for spiders, though the 
animal is uncommon. The first and possibly only 
record of this species in Wiltshire was by Dr. H. P. 
Blackmore from ‘Salisbury’ (Pickard-Cambridge, 
1912). 


Mhales 
OFemale 


wm 
o 
cw 
= 
= 
= 
a 
SS. 
5 
o 
oD 
na 


J FMAM J J 
hdonth 


Fig.27. M. segmentata adult activity 


Species not recorded in Wiltshire 
Only one British species of this family has not been 
recorded in Wiltshire, Meta bourneti Simon, 1922. 
This is a Nationally scarce (Notable B) species, 
with habitat preferences similar to those of M. 
menardi. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Many thanks to Michael Darby for letting me know 
of the spider records made by Dauntsey’s School, 
and to John Murphy for providing me with a copy 
of Pickard-Cambridge’s paper on Wiltshire 
arachnids. 


Bibliography 


ASKINS, M., 1999. ‘Spiders’, Recording Wiltshire’s 
Biodiversity, 4: 39-41. 

ASKINS, M., 2002. ‘The Spiders of the Genus 
Philodromus (Araneae) in Wiltshire’, WANHM, 95: 
269-273. 

BRISTOWE, W.S., 1958. The World of Spiders. Collins, 
London. 

HARVEY, P.R., NELLIST, D.R. and TELFER, M.G. 
(eds), 2002. Provisional Atlas of British Spiders 
(Arachnida, Araneae). Huntingdon: Biological 
Records Centre. 

LOCKETT, G.H., MILLIDGE, A.F. and MERRETT, 
P., 1974. British Spiders, volume 3. Ray Society, 
London. 

PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE, O., 1912. ‘Arachnida of 
Wiltshire’, WANHM, 37: 380. 

SAVORY, T., 1946. J. Queckett Microsc. Club, (4) 3: 18- 
24. 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 137-142 


The Use of Beetles in Evaluating the Saproxylic 


Status of Savernake Forest 
by Michael Darby’ and Keith Alexander’ 


The derivation of the Index of Ecological Continuity and the Saproxylic Quality Index as methods of 
grading sites by assigning scores to dead-wood beetles is explained. The species recorded in the Forest are 
then listed, together with their status and ratings in both Indices. These enable previous assessments of the 
Forest and its position 1n regard to both national and local criteria to be up-dated, and tables are provided. 


BACKGROUND 


For many years the evaluation of sites for wildlife 
conservation was based mainly on botanical and 
ornithological criteria. In the case of relic 
woodlands, formerly and sometimes currently 
managed by the wood-pasture system, it is now 
recognised that vascular plants and birds are 
unlikely to produce meaningful measures of their 
importance, and that saproxylic (dead-wood) 
beetles provide a more reliable guide. In 1986 
Harding and Rose, after confirming decaying wood 
as an important habitat for invertebrates, identified 
156 beetles as ‘indicator’ species and arranged them 
into three groups. Attention since has focussed on 
refining the list and introducing ‘scoring’ according 
to species continuity and rarity. The advantages of 
such a system are seen to be its use in the provision 
of standards against which sites may be judged, and 
to enable evaluation on the basis of samples rather 
than exhaustive cumulative lists. 

The first result of these endeavours was the 
Index of Ecological Continuity (IEC) (Alexander 
1988; Harding and Alexander 1994). Scores were 
assigned on a scale of 1-3 to Harding and Rose’s 
groups, with 3 being awarded for species regarded 


~ as being the most faithful to a site and 1 to those 


regarded as occurring widely in wooded land. Thus, 


the index loosely reflected that developed by Rose 
for lichens, but had the advantage of operating with 
a much larger number of species which were less 
sensitive to atmospheric pollution (although, unlike 
lichens, beetles are seasonal and more difficult to 
sample). 

With information on species provided by the 
Invertebrate Site Register (ISR) of the then Nature 
Conservancy Council (now English Nature), 
Harding and Alexander were able to use the IEC 
to produce a table listing the 45 most important 
‘national sites for saproxylic Coleoptera of ancient 
woodlands, especially pasture woodlands’, in which 
Savernake appeared in 29th position. The table has 
subsequently been kept up to date by KA as new 
sites have been studied and species added to the 
known fauna of previously studied sites. A few 
additional species have been taken into the IEC 
calculation as knowledge of the fauna has improved, 
notably Ischnomera caerulea and Leptura 
sexguttata, both of which are known from 
Savernake. Savernake is currently ranked 20th in 
the UK (see Table 4 below). 

More recently, Fowles et al. (1999) have 
introduced another system of scoring based on the 
full list of saproxylic beetles. They included all those 
species with a ‘dependence upon microhabitats 
associated largely with the process of damage and 


'The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5LZ *The National Trust, 33 Sheep Street, Cirencester GL7 1RQ 


138 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


decay in the bark and wood of trees and large woody 
shrubs and climbers’, and produced a list of 599 
species. Scores were then assigned to these 
according to the levels of species’ rarity previously 
published by Hyman (1992,1994). The total 
achieved by adding up all the qualifying species on 
a site was titled the Species Quality Score (SQS) 
and the result of dividing this by the number of 
species found (and multiplying by one hundred), 
the Saproxylic Quality Index (SQD. 

Fowles et al. (1999) also included a list of 
selected national sites arranged in order of their 
SQI scores, but Savernake was omitted because of 
the lack of records (apart from those in the ISR). 
In an earlier article (Darby, 2001) MD attempted 
to apply the SQI to Wiltshire, working mainly with 
the results of his own recording and research. This 
achieved an SQI of 505.6 for Savernake (based on 
71 eligible species) which placed it in 13th position 
in the table of Fowles et al. (1999). However, it 
should be noted that the requirement of the SQI 
system for detailed and complete lists of saproxylic 
beetles for each site has meant that it has been 
possible to consider fewer sites than has been 
examined for the IEC approach. Sites such as 
Savernake are therefore ranked higher than they 
perhaps should be. 

As a result of further research since then, both 
at English Nature and in the offices of Forest 
Enterprises, and of a number of field trips made 
with the specific intention of recording saproxylic 
beetles, it is now possible to update both the IEC 
and SQI scores for Savernake, and to adjust its 
position in both national tables. Because more work 
has also been carried out on other Wiltshire sites, it 
is also possible to produce a revised table including 


RESULTS 


Savernake of SQI totals for selected sites in the 
county and to add to it, for the first time, a table of 
the same sites graded according to their IEC totals. 


SOURCES OF RECENT 
RECORDS FOR 
SAVERNAKE 


Darby, M.D., 2001,2002. Visits to record Coleoptera, 
23 October 2001 and 19 March 2002. 

English Nature, 1991. Invertebrate Site Register and 
sources cited therein. 

English Nature, 1993. Intercept and Malaise trapping 
exercises at White Road South (SU205676) and White 
Road North (SU20986819) between 20 April —11 
October 1993; and Red Vein Bottom West 
(SU21746770) and Red Bottom East (SU22456782) 
between 16 June and 11 October 1993. 
Determinations by S.A.Williams. 

English Nature, 1994. Intercept and Malaise trapping 
exercises at Long Harry (SU20826768) between 28 
April — 18 May, 9 June — 19 July, 30 August — 11 
October 1994; Church Walk (SU20746746) between 
18 May — 11 October 1994; and Grey Road 
(SU20536738) between 28 April—11 October 1994. 
Determinations by S.A.Williams. 

English Nature, 1995. Intercept and Malaise trapping 
exercise at Marie Louise Ride (SU21376582); Sawpit 
Drive (SU21536567); Charcoal Burners 
(SU21756542); and Column Ride (SU21746535) 
at various dates between 31 May — 16 November 
1995. Determinations by M.Darby. 

Fowles, A.P., 1990. Visit to record saproxylic Coleoptera, 
22 June. 

WANHS, 2001. Field trip to record saproxylic Coleoptera 
(determinations by M.Darby), 31 May. 


Table 1: List of Saproxylic beetles recorded from Savernake Forest since 1950 


Species Rarity SQI IEC 
score grade 

Histeridae 

Abraeus globosus (Hoffmann) Local 4 - 

Paromalus flavicornis (Herbst) Local 2 - 

Ptiliidae 

Ptenidium turgidumThomson RDBK 16 2 

Pteryx suturalis (Heer) Local 2: - 

Leiodidae 

Anisotoma humeralis (F.) Local 2 - 

Agathidium confusum Brisout RDBI 24 - 

Agathidium nigrinum Sturm Local 2, - 


Scaphidiidae 
Scaphidium quadrimaculatum Oliv. Local - 


to 


Staphylinidae 


Phloeostiba plana (Paykull) Local 2 - 
Siagonium quadricorne Kirby Local 2 - 
Atrecus affinis (Paykull) Common 1 - 
Quedius maurus (Sahlberg) Local 4 3 
Quedius xanthopus Erichson Nb 4 3 
Sepedophilus littoreus (L.) Local 2 = 
Placusa tachyporoides (Waltl) Nb 8 - 
Anomognathus cuspidatus (Erichs.) Local 2 

Leptusa pulchella (Mannerheim) Local 2 - 
Dinaraea aequata (Erichs.) Common 1 - 
Dinaraea linearis (Grav.) Local PD - 
Lucanidae 

Lucanus cervus (L.) Nb 8 - 


bo 
1 


Dorcus parallelipipedus (L.) Local 


THE USE OF BEETLES IN EVALUATING THE SAPROXYLIC STATUS OF SAVERNAKE FOREST 139 
Sinodendron cylindricum (L.) Common 2 3 Litargus connexus (Fourcroy) Local 2, - 
Elateridae Mycetophagus multipunctatus F. Local 2 - 
Calambus bipustulatus (L.) Nb 8 3 Mycetophagus piceus (F.) Nb 4 3 
Denticollis linearis (L.) Common 1 - Mycetophagus quadripustulatus (L.) Local 2 - 
Stenagostus rhombeus (Olivier) Local 4 3 Colydiidae 

Procraerus tibialis (Bois. & Lac.) RDB3 16 1 Bitoma crenata (F.) Local 4 3 
Melanotus villosus (Fourcroy) Common 1 3} Colydium elongatum (F.) RDB3 16 1 
Cantharidae Tenebrionidae 

Malthinus flaveolus (Herbst) Common 1 - Eledona agricola (Herbst) Nb 4 3 
Malthodes fubulatus Kiesenwetter Nb 8 - Pseudocistela ceramboides (L.) Nb 8 2 
Malthodes marginatus (Latreille) Common 1 - Mycetochara humeralis (F.) Na 16 3 
Malthodes maurus (Castelnau) Nb 16 - Tetratomidae 

Malthodes minimus (L.) Common 1 - Tetratoma fungorum F. Local 2 g) 
Lycidae Salpingidae 

Platycis minuta (F.) Nb 8 3 Vincenzellus ruficollis (Panzer) Local 2 - 
Dermestidae Rhinosimus planirostris (F.) Common 1 - 
Ctesias serra (F.) Nb 4 3 Pyrochroidae 

Anobiidae Pyrochroa coccinea (L.) Nb 4 3 
Ptinomorphus imperialis (L.) Nb 8 - Pyrochroa serraticornis (Scopoli) Common 1 

Pulinus pectnicornis (L.) Common 1 - Melandryidae 

Dorcatoma flavicornis (Fab.) Nb 8 3 Orchesia undulata Kraatz Local 4 3 
Ptinidae Phloiotrya vaudoueri Mulsant Nb 8 2 
Punus subpilosus Sturm Nb 8 2 Melandrya caraboides (L.) Nb 4 3 
Cleridae Conopalpus testaceus (Olivier) Nb 8 3 
Thanasimus formicarius (L.) Local 4 3 Scraptiidae 

Melyridae Anaspis frontalis (L.) Common 1 - 
Dasytes aeratus Stephens Local 2 - Anaspis rufilabris (Gyllenhal) Common 1 
Nitidulidae Mordellidae 

Epuraea longula Erichson Nb 8 - Tomoxia bucephala Costa Na 16 1 
Soronia punctatissima (Illiger) Local 2 - Oedemeridae 

Glischrochilus quadriguttatus (F.) — Local 2 - Ischnomera cyanea (F.) Nb 4 3 
Rhizophagidae Ischnomera caerulea (L.) RDB3 24 1 
Rhizophagus bipustulatus (F.) Common 1 - Ischnomera sanguinicollis (F.) Nb 8 1 
Rhizophagus dispar (Paykull) Common 1 - Cerambycidae 

Rhizophagus ferrugineus (Paykull) | Local 2 - Prionus coriarius (L.) Na 16 3 
Sphindidae Rhagium bifasciatum F. Common 1 - 
Aspidiphorus orbiculatus (Gyll.) Local 2 - Rhagium mordax (Degeer) Common 1 - 
Cucujidae Stenocorus meridianus (L.) Local 2, - 
Pediacus depressus (Herbst) Na 16 2 Grammoptera ruficornis (F.) Common 1 - 
Pediacus dermestoides (F.) Local 3 Alosterna tabacicolor (Degeer) Local 2 - 
Silvanidae Leptura sexguttata F. RDB3 24 1 
Silvanus bidentatus (Fabricius) Nb 8 2 Rutpela maculata (Poda) Common 1 - 
Silvanus unidentatus (Olivier) Local 4 3 Strangalia melanura (L.) Local 2 - 
Erotylidae Strangalia quadrifasciata (L.) Local 2 3 
Triplax aenea (Schaller) Local 2 3 Clytus artetis (L.) Common 1 - 
Biphyllidae Anaglyptus mysticus (L.) Nb 4 - 
Diplocoelus fagi Guerin-M. Nb 8 2 Leiopus nebulosus (L.) Local 2 - 
Cerylonidae Tetrops praeusta (L.) Local 2 - 
Cerylon fagi Brisout Nb 8 3 Curculionidae 

Cerylon ferrugineum Stephens Local 2 - Magdalis armigera (Fourcroy) Local 2 - 
Cerylon histeroides (F.) Local 4 - Magdalis ruficornis (L.) Local 2 - 
Corylophidae Phloeophagus lignarius (Marsham) Local 2 - 
Orthoperus mundus Matthews Local 4 - Acalles misellus Boheman Local 2 - 
Endomychidae Scolytidae 

Endomychus coccineus (L.) Local 2 - Scolytus intricatus (Ratzeburg) Local 2 - 
Lathridiidae Dryocoetinus villosus (F.) Local 2 - 
Lathridius consimilis Mannerheim Nb 8 1 Platypodidae 

Enicmus testaceus (Stephens) Local 2 - Platypus cylindrus (F.) Nb 8 3 
Cisidae 

Cis boleti (Scopoli) Common 1 - Total number of species 107 

Mycetophagidae SQS score 4518 SQI rating 484.1 TEC value 63 
Triphyllus bicolor (F.) Local 4 3 


—=—_—_—_—_—_—— 


Note: One important species listed in the ISR, Tachinus bipustulatus, an RDB1 Staphylinid, has been omitted from the 

- list. The record was based on its inclusion in the Report of the Marlborough College Natural History, 1946 (recorded 
as having been seen on 1 October 1945) but examination of the College collection (see Darby, 2002) has failed to reveal! 
the specimen, and because it is easily confused with other more common species (and the list was prepared by two 
pupils who were not Coleoptera specialists) the record cannot be considered reliable. 


140 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Table 2: Total numbers of saproxylic species with 
national conservation status recorded from 
Savernake. 


National Criteria for status No of Savernake 


status species 
RDBI Endangered - 
RDB2 Vulnerable - 
RDB3 Rare (present in<15 10km squares in Britain) 4 
RDBI Of RDB status but further information is 

required for placement in a precise category 1 
RDBK Possibly of RDB status but further information 

is required for confirmation 1 
Na Nationally scarce (present in < 30 10km 

squares in Britain) 4 
Nb Nationally scarce (present in <100 10km 

squares in Britain) 27 


(Status taken from Hyman (1992,1994) updated in some 
instances by Fowles et al., 1999.) 


Table 3: Total numbers of Index of Ecological 
Continuity species recorded from Savernake in each 
grade 


Source Grade 1 Grade2 Grade 3 Calculated 
IEC 
Alexander (1988) 3 1 11 22 
Harding and 
Alexander (1994) 5 3} 12 33 
Current paper 7 7 28 63 


Table 5: Top twenty sites for which SQI scores 
have been calculated (Fowles et al. 1994) with 
Savernake added 


Site Number of qualifying SQS SQI 
species 

New Forest ? ? ? 

Windsor 365 3092 847.1 
Richmond Park 235 1510 642.6 
Moccas Park 241 1545 638.4 
Croome Park 107 665 621.5 
Epping Forest 256 1531 598.0 
Abernethy Forest 144 852 591.7 
Ashstead Common 222 1300 585.6 
Parham Park 65 378 581.5 
Arundel Park 131 710 542.0 
Box Hill 226 1193 527.9 
Dunham Park 151 781 513.8 
Black Wood of Rannoch 15 385 51333 
Forest of Bere 109 551 505.4 
Sherwood Forest 82 412 502.4 
Mersham Hatch Estate 115 562 488.7 
Lullingstone Park 105 511 4806.7 
Savernake Forest 107 518 484.1 
Camborne Woods 40 191 477.5 
Staverton Park 106 502 473.6 


Note: an SQI above 590 is suggested as denoting sites of 
international importance, and above 500 as denoting sites 
of national importance. 

Savernake’s score is lower than that given in Darby, 
2001 largely because the species recorded since have had 
low SQI values. 


Table 4: Top twenty British ancient broadleaf 
woodland sites ranked according to the Index of 
Ecological Continuity (Harding and Alexander, 
1994; Lott et al. 1999; updated by KA) with 
Savernake’s position adjusted 


Site IEC 
Windsor Great Park and Forest 236 
New Forest 183 
Moccas Park 126 
Bredon Hill 120 
Sherwood Forest 102 
Epping Forest 101 
Burnham Beeches 94 
Richmond Park 85 
Ashstead Common 85 
Hatchlands Park 82 
Hatfield Forest al 
Calke Park 69 
Hainault Forest 69 
Epsom Common 68 
Clumber Park 67 
Chirk Castle Park 67 
Knole Park 65 
Powis Castle Park 65 
Croombe Park 64 


Savernake Forest 63 


Table 6: IEC applied to selected sites in Wiltshire 


Site Number of recorded species in each grade IEC 
1 2} 3 
Savernake Forest 7 7 28 63 
Langley Wood 1 4 12 23 
Grovely Wood 1 B 9 18 
Great Ridge 1 2 5 12 
Stourhead Park - - 8 8 
Spye Park - 1 5 7 
Cranborne Chase - . 6 6 
Phillips House, Dinton - - 5 5 


Table 7: SQS and SQI applied to selected sites in 
Wiltshire 


Site Number of qualifying SQS SQI 
species 

Savernake 107 518 484.1 

Grovely Wood 43 192 446.5 

Great Ridge Wood 37 139 375.6 

Langley Wood 51 189 370:5 

Cranborne Chase 47 166 353.2 


Note: These figures update those given in Darby, 2001. 


¥. a — —_——— 


THE USE OF BEETLES IN EVALUATING THE SAPROXYLIC STATUS OF SAVERNAKE FOREST 141 


COMMENT 


Given the history of Savernake and its management, 
which has long favoured the retention of dead-wood 
in situ, the present saproxylic species list is 
disappointing, both in terms of the number of 
species recorded and of the lack of rarer species. 
This is particularly so given the recording effort 
put in over the last decade. It is surely remarkable, 
for example, that no RDB1 or RDB2 species have 
been seen in the Forest. One explanation could be 
that much of the recording was not specifically 
aimed at saproxylic species. Thus, although the 
trapping exercises carried out by English Nature in 
1993-1995 resulted in the capture of many 
thousands of specimens (most, but not all of which 
have been determined), malaise and intercept traps 
are not designed to catch dead-wood species in 
preference to others, and consequently their 
numbers were low in the samples. 

Another explanation may lie in the dates when 
recording took place. The number of species from 
fungi is lower than might be expected, which could 
be accounted for by the fact that most effort took 
place outside the main fungus season. 
Furthermore, the sorting of the traps does not 
appear to have picked up the smallest species, 
which may explain why records of the largest beetle 
group, the Staphylinoidea, are few. Other absences 
are more difficult to account for. Several species 
of Buprestid and Ampedus for example, have been 
widely recorded from other Wiltshire woods. It is 
to be hoped that more focussed recording in the 
future will correct some of these omissions. 
Savernake’s position in the SQI table of sites puts 
it just outside nationally important status which 
is surely not a reflection of its true position. The 
IEC in contrast places it well within national 
importance. 

A more likely explanation lies in the recent 
management history of the Forest, where 
commercial timber production has been the priority. 
Much of the saproxylic beetle fauna is actually 
warmth loving and is favoured by management 
systems which promote large open-grown trees. 
Savernake today is dominated by dense closed 
canopy plantations, with ancient oaks in particular 
suffering from heavy shading. Much of the fauna 


- has been squeezed into a few surviving areas of more 


open grown trees and it is possible that a significant 
part of the fauna may already have been pushed to 
the verge of extinction and beyond. 


It is important also to take consideration of the 
composition of the saproxylic beetle fauna of 
Savernake. Its affinities are more with the New 
Forest fauna and it is possible that further New 
Forest specialities may yet be found here. Key 
species present include Colydium elongatum which 
is confined to a restricted area of central southern 
England, primarily Savernake and the New Forest. 
Ischnomera caerulea is also a great rarity, known 
elsewhere from Moccas Park (Herefordshire) and 
a scatter of sites across into Kent. Leptura sexguttata 
has a very relict distribution in England, and 
Savernake and the New Forest are key sites. Other 
important species present in Savernake include 
Pediacus depressus, Procraerus tibialis and 
Ptenidium turgidum. This species combination 
adds to the special importance of Savernake 
nationally. 

The surveys conducted by English Nature 
between 1993-1995, together with the surviving 
material on the Forest’s history, and the recent, very 
detailed work on the trees by Jack Oliver and Joan 
Davies, constitute a rich source of material for future 
research. This should not only help to throw more 
light on the specific saproxylic beetle fauna of 
Savernake, but also on these important faunas 
elsewhere. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We are very grateful to Patrick Cashman at English 
Nature and Bill Ayres at Forest Enterprises for 
extracting information about Savernake beetles 
from their files. To Adrian Fowles we are grateful 
for advice in regard to specific species. To all the 
members of WANHS and the Wiltshire and 
Swindon Biological Records Office who attended 
MD’s Savernake saproxylic beetle day we are 
grateful for their support and encouragement. 


Bibliography 


ALEXANDER, K.N.A., 1988. ‘The development of an 
index of ecological continuity for deadwood associated 
beetles’ in R.C.Welch, ‘Insect indicators of ancient 
woodland’, Antenna ,12: 69-70. 

DARBY, M., 2001. ‘A First Attempt to apply the 
Saproxylic Quality Index for Coleoptera to Wiltshire’ 
Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity, 6: 7-10. 

DARBY, M., 2002. ‘A Preliminary Account of the 
Ladybirds of Wiltshire (Coleoptera:Coccinellidae) 
including a previously overlooked record of the five 
spot (Coccinella quinquepuncrata L.)’, WANHM, 95: 
125-130. 


142 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


FOWLES, A.P., ALEXANDER, K.N.A., and KEY, R., 
1999. “The Saproxylic Quality Index: evaluating 
wooded habitats for the conservation of dead-wood 
Coleoptera’, The Coleopterist, 8(3): 121-141. 

HARDING, P. and ALEXANDER, K.N.A. 1994. The 
use of saproxylic invertebrates in the selection and 
evaluation of areas of relic forest in pasture woodlands, 
British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 
7(supplement): 21-26 

HARDING, P. and ROSE, F., 1986. Pasture- Woodlands 


in Lowland Britain: a review of their importance for 
wildlife conservation.Huntingdon: Institute of 
Terrestrial Ecology. 

HYMAN,P. revised by PARSONS, M., (1992,1994) A 
Review of the Scarce and Threatened Coleoptera of 
Great Britain, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 

LOTT, D.A., ALEXANDER, K.N.A., DRANE, A.B., 
and FOSTER, A.P., (1999) “The dead-wood beetles 
of Croome Park, Worcestershire’, The Coleopterist, 
8(2), 79-87. 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 143-147 


The Friendship between Sir John Thynne junior 
and John, Baron Stourton of Stourton in 
Wiltshire: an Account of the Provenance of the 
Portrait of the 10th Baron Cobham and his 
Family at Longleat House 


by Kate Harris 


The correspondence of John, Baron Stourton (d.s.p.13 October 1588) in the archives at Longleat House 
and a further document relating to the disposal of goods from neighbouring Stourton for his widow, 
Frances, daughter of the 10th Baron Cobham, in 1590 can be seen as evidence suggesting that the famous 
Cobham family portrait of 1567 now at Longleat entered the collection at this early period. 


The picture of William Brooke, 10th Baron Cob- 
ham, and his family is among the best known and 
most studied of the English portraits in the 
collection of the Marquess of Bath at Longleat.! 
Dated 1567, usually attributed to the Master of the 
Countess of Warwick, and full of circumstance and 
detail betokening the consequence of the sitters, 
the portrait shows the family of Lord Cobham (1 
November 1527-6 March 1597), Lord Warden of 
the Cinque Ports, Constable of Dover Castle, Lord 
Lieutenant of Kent (1558-96), a man nominated 
Knight of the Garter in 1584 (installed 14 April 
1585), who ended his career as Lord Chamberlain 
(he was appointed in August 1596) and who had 
earlier served on several embassies. In November 
1558 he was sent to Brussels to announce Queen 
Mary’s death to Philip of Spain, and in 1578 and 
1588 he was sent on embassy to the Spanish 
governor of the Netherlands. He received Elizabeth 
I at Cobham Hall during her progress in July 1559 
and again in September 1573. The portrait shows 


~ him with his second wife Frances,” daughter of Sir 


John Newton of Gloucestershire and one of 


Elizabeth I’s Ladies of the Bedchamber, whom he 
married on 25 February 1560. They stand behind 
a table set with pewter for a dessert of fruit, walnuts 
and ragged comfits (narrow strips of cinnamon or 
candied peel coated with sugar in a balancing pan),’ 
with, seated on the left, Lady Cobham’s sister, 
Johanna, and, also seated, from left to right their 
six children. These are the three sons Henry, William 
and Maximilian, the twin daughters Elizabeth and 
Frances, and the third daughter Margaret, with their 
pets, a puppy (signifying Christian aptitude), a 
marmoset (a reference to the mischief and sin 
inherent in the child — the monkey is being 
restrained), a goldfinch (often associated with the 
Christ child) and a parrot (referring to the child’s 
capacity for imitation). Lady Cobham’s black velvet 
gown, profusely decorated with pairs of gold and 
enamelled aglets, has a high collar above which a 
small ruff rises and against which is displayed a 
carcanet of gold jewels set alternately with pearls 
and square table-cut diamonds with a ship pendant 
set with diamonds, rubies and a pendent pearl.’ 
Lord Cobham wears a black cap and black velvet 


The Estate Office, Longleat, Warminster BA12 7NW 


144 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


William Brooke, 10th Baron Cobham and his family, 1567 (copyright Marquess of Bath) 


gown with a deep fur collar while each of his 
daughters, in identical green square-necked gowns, 
has a pair of plain gold chains with a large jewel 
pinned to the centre of the breast and, tied around 
the neck beneath the ruff with black ribbon, a gold 
jewel set with an oval ruby, a table-cut stone and a 
pendent pearl. A similar jewel is worn by Lady 
Cobham’s sister but suspended from a black and 
white enamelled carcanet: she also wears a triple 
gold chain over her plain black gown with slashed 
sleeves. The eldest son wears a black velvet doublet 
embroidered with gold braid and a table cut 
diamond set in a gold jewel suspended from a black 
ribbon. The babies wear braid-trimmed white 
doublets with small buttons on the shoulder wings. 

When the portrait came to Longleat has always 
admitted some small doubt; this, despite 
considerable evidence surviving in the archives 
there. Turning from the rich circumstance of the 
picture itself to some more circumstantial 
documentary evidence not previously discussed 
would appear to confirm the interpretation that the 


portrait may indeed have been part of the Longleat 
collection as early as the sixteenth century. Given 
the later history of the collection at Cobham Hall 
in Kent (and the Thynne family’s part in the same), 
it has never seemed quite certain enough that the 
reference in the Longleat inventory of 27 September 
1594 to a ‘piktur of my Lord Cobham’ described 
as hanging in the ‘great dyninge Chamber’ referred 
to the well-known family portrait.° Only in the 
inventory of 26 February 1718 is the description 
such as to admit of no argument; for there the 
portrait, now described amongst the contents of 
the ‘Blew Parlor’, is specifically called ‘a family 
Piece’.° Although Longleat Thynne Papers volume 
XXV contains a significant amount of material 
about the Cobham Hall sale in 1704, and it is clear 
that the Thomas Thynne, Ist Viscount Weymouth, 
the then owner of Longleat, bought a number of 
paintings at the sale (fourteen pictures of Kings and 
Queens of England, a portrait of Lord Seymour of 
Sudeley, and portraits of the King and Queen of 
Bohemia, all still in the Longleat collection), there 


THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SIR JOHN THYNNE JUNIOR AND JOHN, BARON STOURTON 145 


is no mention of the Cobham family portrait and 
thus nothing to support the fairly obvious 
supposition that it was at this point that the picture 
entered the collection at Longleat House. 

The biography of one of Lord Cobham’s twin 
daughters, or more specifically the death of her 
husband, may finally explain the picture’s presence 
at Longleat. Frances Brooke married first in 1580 
John, Baron Stourton of Stourton in Wiltshire less 
than ten miles from Longleat. Her twin sister 
Elizabeth was the wife of Sir Robert Cecil, 1st Earl 
of Salisbury. A sequence of fourteen letters dating 
between 31 March 1582 and 20 July 1588 from 
Lord Stourton and his immediate associates to John 
Thynne junior (1555-1604), Stourton’s exact 
contemporary and the son of the builder of Longleat 
House, indicates not just a relationship based on 
proximity but very close alliance — both close social 
relations, and complicity in the parties’ management 
of county affairs.’ Shared enthusiasms for hawks, 
hounds and horseflesh are apparent — a request to 
borrow a ‘Genette’ (jennet, a small Spanish horse) 
to stud is accompanied by the earnest promise ‘I 
will cause him to be so well vsed in all respectes as 
if he were at longleate’ (letter of 25 April 1585). 
Whether in need of ‘muscle’ to figure in a ‘rumble’, 
to subdue ‘certayne intollerable disorder and 
resystaunce not farre frome my howse, contrarye 
to her Highnes lawes’ or to supply ‘substantiall men’ 
to pack a court of survey at Martock in Somerset, 
it was to Thynne that Stourton wrote, more or less 
urgently for assistance (letters of 13 May 1582 and 
1 April 1586). His letter of 15 August 1585 carefully 
arranged a rendezvous at ‘willoughbies hedge .. . 
to conferre as we shall thincke good’ before an 
official meeting at Hindon. The latest letter to 
survive (dated 25 July 1588) brought hot news from 
Weymouth about the Spanish Armada: 


Vppon the retourne of my servante from Waymouthe 
this maie advertise yow, that the fight at Sea hathe 
bine great and terrible, and that my Lo. Admirall and 
Sir ffrancis Drake have taken the vizeadmirall of 
Spaine beinge a shippe of xij hundred tunne, wherein 
are the duke of Allva and Don Petro, and lx 
englishemen, and also one other shippe of vij hundred 
tunne was taken by Portland . .. And farther my Lo. 
Admirall and Sir ffr. Drake doe still pursewe the 
spanishe fleete, vppe alonge the chanell, whiche is 
thought to be abowte nine score saile. I thought good 
speedilie to certifie yowe hereof, that knowinge the 
certainetie yowe maie the better consider what is to 
be done for her Ma[jes]ties service. 


It comes as no surprise that John Thynne was 
one of the advisers to whom Frances, Lady Stourton 
turned on the early death of her husband soon 
afterwards on 13 October of the same year. They 
had no children and Stourton was succeeded by his 
brother, Edward. That Lady Stourton’s position was 
problematic, her ‘cash flow’ poor and her affairs in 
some disarray is clear from the letter of solicitous 
paternal advice she received from Baron Cobham. 
Significantly enough still in the Longleat collection, 
dated ‘from my howse at London’ and directed to 
‘my verie loving Doughter the Ladie Stowreton’, it 
reads:® 


(f.1r] 

My very good doughter I have receved your letter, 
and am glad to vnderstand therby that you are soe 
adviced in the disposing of your estate. Neverthelesse 
yf these poinctes be rightly consideride they are to be 
regarded as thinges reasonable and fitt for you to doe. 
namely 

That althoughe my Lo. Sturton that nowe is 
hathe enteride vpon the leases bequeathed, yet yf you 
have not alreadie given your consent therevnto, I 
thincke yt meete that you staie to give your consent: 
for the causes sett downe in my former direction. 

The selling of some partes of the goodes 
towardes the charges of the funerall is no waie 
preiudiciall vnles they be sold vnderfoote to your losse. 

The receipte of suche rentes as were due to my 
Lo. are not hurtefull soe that they be imployed 
accordingly. 

It is not meant to bring your writt of dower, 
unles it appeere vpon the vewe of my Lo. Lyving that 
the same shalbe more beneficeall vnto you then your 
Ioincture nether was it otherwiese meant / but for 
your commoditie. 

I praie you send mee a perfect inventorie of all 
the goodes in particuler. and the severall valuation of 
them. wherin the leases most be compriced. 

I woulde have you at some convenient time in 
good sort to let my Lo. and the rest that be there with 
you vnderstand of your determinacion to breake vp 
your howse, and to come to London. 

Althoughe your Servaunte at his being heere, 
did sell your plate, wherof he said nothing vnto mee: 
yet I was faine to paie the herault xv." in prest vpon 
his fees. 

Mr Brean hath ben heere but I did not see him. 
[f.1v] 

These vnkinde partes makes mee doubt of their good 
dealing whome you putt in trust for your business, 
my care is, that all maie be done for the best. 


146 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


You are not to paie anie Legacies, or to promise 
the payment of anie, before the debtes be aunsweride 
or order taken with creditors for them. Therefore you 
shall not haue any suche neede of money whiles you 
are there. But yf any debtes be due vpon specialltie 
with penaltie let them to whome the same is due come 
vp to London. and heere they shall receve it, for I 
have it not before that time. I praie you send one 
expressely to let mee knowe when I shall send your 
brother and Coache horses for you. which verie 
willingly I will doe. 

I have procured you a lodging hard by mee. 
Which I doe reserve vntill I knowe your resolucion. 
Therefore I praie you faile not to let mee knowe what 
you are determined to doe, and that as soone as you 
can. Thus praying All mightie god alwaies to blesse 
you. I commett you to his protectione. from my howse 
at London the xxiiij “ of Novembre 1588. 

Your loving father./ 

Cobham 


It is the notice of the disposal of some of Lady 
Stourton’s goods which catches the attention in the 
present context. Some further detailed evidence of 
a disposal of goods also survives in the form of a 
list of items at Stourton sold for Lady Stourton in 
1590.° It confirms also that John Thynne was 
directly involved in the appraisal and sale of goods 
at Stourton. Analysis of the list suggests that the 
pieces sold came largely from the armoury and the 
wardrobe. It does not mention the Cobham portrait, 
or, indeed, any item of that quality and condition 
(many, if not most items are variously described as 
worn out, dilapidated, bent, rusty, in some cases 
specifically as unsaleable) and is not presented as 
more than circumstantial support for the idea that 
this famous Elizabethan family portrait arrived at 
Longleat soon after the death of John, Lord 
Stourton. Crucially, however, it does include on the 
second folio a second very short list noticing 
discrepancies between a list or ‘note’ drawn up by 
one Edward Rogers and another (unfortunately not 
surviving) drawn up by none other than ‘Mr 
Thynne’. Accompanied by some glosses to assist 
particularly in the identification of the more arcane 
terms for armour and weaponry, the document, 
presented here in conclusion, reads in its entirety: 


[f.1r] 
A note of Stuffe sowld at Stowrton 1590 for ye Ladye 
Stowrton 


In primis ij Cheyres of cloth of gowld and one lowe 
Cheyer of tuftafata!® verye owld andtorne  xxs 


Item 1 stooles covered with owld velvet two with tuftafata 
ij Lowe stooles of clothe of golde worne out and two 
lowe stooles of tafata and a verye badd Cuisshion of 
nedle worke all =_xxs 

Item a payer of Irone andyrons and a payer of lytell Dogges 
vs 

Item a bead steede a fetherbead bowlster rugge with 
blanketes and curtens of grene clothe all vii 

Item a cloth of gowld Cuishon a Cheyer and Cushing of 
nedle worke all torne and worne out’ xxxs 

Item xxvij morrus pyckes!!' croked and mard with lying 
XXXS 

Item for fyrre boordes xxs 

Item ij coberdes and a table of ashe vnfynished —_xvs 

Item a cheyer of clothe of gold verye badd ij lowe cheyres 
of damaske worne out and ij chestes_ xxvjs viijd 

Item lyght horsmen staves xij and iij launces broke and 
croked xs 

Item iiijor whit Corstlettes'? and headpeces © iiij li 

Item nyne whyt morryens" and nyne blacke wherof many 
broken xls 

Item xv) Jackes'* many of which ar mard with rotes and 
ruste vjli 

Item xl “ blacke byll heades verye owlde = xvs 

Item xx "* Calyvers'? with flaskes and vj horsmens peces 
but verye muche spoyled with rust x li 

Item gownpowder 1 li 

Item a payer of wooll wayghtes and a payer of owld troye 
wayghtes _iijs ilijd 

Item pysstooles fyve and iij payer of gauntes but verye 
badd = xxxs 

Item a payer of trunkes vnbound _ xviijd 

Itemapresse xs 

Item fyve payer of almon ryvettes'® which I cannot sell 
nll 

Item a owld payer of virginall which I cannott sell nll 

Item a turkeye carpett delivered to ye lord Stowrton one 
your letter 

Item iij owld peces of bocasse’’ not in ye Inventorye 

Summa totalis xlij li vjs vjd 


Item to be alowed i1j li x1ij s vjd soe muche due to me one 
ye fote of last account ili xiij s nijd 

More for a sylver plate engraven with armes lost at ye 
Lord stowrtons buryall ij li vjs viijd 

More in redye monye delivered to Edward your servant 
in August 1590 xxl 

Summa xxvijj li 

[f.2r] 

The dyfference betwixt Mr Thynnes note and Edward 
Rogers 


THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SIR JOHN THYNNE JUNIOR AND JOHN, BARON STOURTON 147 


Item Cushyens Cheyres and stooles _ vj(?) 
I sylke quilte a payer of blanketes and tester 
Item a canapye of tafata 

Item a boord to stand in a chamber with a draer in 
Item five peices of arras 

Item a payer of tonges and fyer shoole 

Item xxv hogshedes 

Item a great glasen bottle 

Item certayne walnut tymber 

Item two peces of carpytes to lye in wyndoes 
Item a payer of andyrons 

Item a myll to myll wheat 

Item a fanne to wynnoe wheat 

Item a cobeard 

Item two peces of blacke armor 

Item a deske to kepe wrytynges in 

Item all the matche for ye calyers 

Item a great chest covered with blacke lether 
Item a gantlett 


Notes 


'Three times exhibited even in recent years, the portrait 
was included in the exhibitions “The Treasure Houses 
of Britain’, National Gallery of Art Washington, 3 
November 1985-16 March 1986, no.25; ‘Childhood: 
a Loan Exhibition of Paintings and Works of Art in 
Aid of The Save the Children Fund’, London, 
Sotheby’s, 2-27 January 1988, no.16; and ‘Dynasties: 
Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630’, 
London, Tate Gallery, 12 October 1995-7 January 
1996, no.51. A useful bibliography will be found 
accompanying the account of the picture in the last. 

? He married first Dorothy daughter of George Nevill: 
for a differing identification of the sitters see most 
recently Susan James and Katlijn van der Sughelen 
‘New Discoveries concerning the Portrait of the 
Family of William Brooke, 10th Lord Cobham, at 
Longleat House’, Dutch Crossing: a Journal of Low 
Countries Studies, 23, 1999, pp.66-101. 

3 Tvan Day ed., Eat Drink & Be Merry: the British at Table 
1600-2000, (to accompany the touring exhibition held 
at Fairfax House, York; Kenwood House, London and 
the Assembly House in Norwich) London, 2000, p.56. 

4 The profusion of precious-metal fastenings and 
ornaments depicted in the portrait prompted its 


inclusion in the recent interdisciplinary case study 
examining both excavated finds and contemporary 
iconographic and documentary sources: David 
Gaimster, Maria Hayward, David Mitchell and Karen 
Parker “Tudor Silver-gilt Dress-hooks: a New Class 
of Treasure Find in England’, The Antiquaries Journal, 
82, 2002, pp.157-196 (see fig.18 and p.180). 

> Longleat, Thynne Papers LIII f.96r. No other portrait 
(extant or recorded) of the family or any member of 
it can be associated with Longleat. 

°Thynne Papers LX XVII f.142r; see also Thynne Papers 
LXXIX (Box XXXII) inventory of 23 September 
1719, f.153r, 66 ‘Blew parlour’ ‘Lord Cobham a 
family piece’ and also 2nd Viscount Weymouth 215 
15/09/1740 room 79 (Billiard Room and Passage) ‘a 
Lord Cobhams Family Piece’. 

? Longleat North Muniment Room 8963.3. 

® Longleat North Muniment Room 8963.26. 

° Longleat North Muniment Room 8963.25. 

'0 “Tuftaffeta’: as the name implies, a kind of taffeta with 
a pile or nap. 

'! “Morris-pike’: a form of pike supposed to be of Moorish 
origin. 

'2 “Corslet’: light half armour (collar, breastplate, 
backplate, tassets, vambraces, gauntlets). 

'5 *Morion’: a helmet (development of the kettle-hat), 
favoured by infantry, especially archers and 
musketeers who found the open headpiece offered 
no impediment when taking aim, in its most 
distinctive shape with down turned brim narrowing 
to a pointed beak at rear and front and rising to a 
lobe-shaped comb (whence ‘comb-morion’). Also 
“Spanish-morion’ which differed, having a distinctive 
pointed, almond-shaped skull. 

'4 ack’: body protection usually for the lightly armed 
foot soldier, small plates of iron or horn secured 
between layers of canvas by a trellis work of stitches 
—a few years later replaced by the buff coat (a jerkin 
of buff leather). 

 *Caliver’: light musket. 

‘6 “Almain rivet’: usually a cheaper form of the corslet, 
half armour for the ordinary soldier comprising salet 
(helmet), gorget (collar), breastplate, backplate and 
splints to protect the arms and back of the hands: the 
latter appear to have been the distinctive feature of 
this equipment and in the Stourton list the reference 
to ‘pairs of Almain rivets’ suggests that it is actually 
just the splints that are meant. 

'7 Possibly ‘bocasin’ a fine buckram often used for lining. 


148 : THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 2. The Westbury White Horse. NMR 21457/05 17-Sep-2001. © English Heritage. NMR 


Please note that Figs. 1, 7, 8, 9 and 11 accompanying this paper will be found between pages 154 and 155 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 148-160 


From Pit Circles to Propellers: Recent Results 


from Aerial Survey in Wiltshire 
by Martyn Barber, Damian Grady and Helen Winton 


Given the long and distinguished history of aerial photography in Wiltshire some archaeologists may be 
forgiven for thinking that aerial photographs are unlikely to reveal new information. This paper examines 
new discoveries from recent aerial reconnaissance during some of the wettest years on record and highlights 
the understanding that can be achieved from the interpretation and mapping of aerial photographs taken 


over the last 80 years. 


INTRODUCTION 


In the last few years both the aerial reconnaissance 
and mapping teams of the Aerial Survey section of 
English Heritage have been active within Wiltshire. 
The wet weather over the last few summers has not 
been conducive to the development of cropmarks 
in the county, indeed the summer of 2002 could 
arguably be described as the worst year for 
cropmarks in living memory. Yet despite the paucity 
of cropmarks there have been some new discoveries, 
most notably at the West Kennet palisaded 
enclosures. In 2001, as part of National Mapping 
Project (Bewley 2001), the air photographic 
interpretation and mapping of the Stonehenge 
World Heritage Site was completed. A report on 
the mapping of the area within the boundaries of 
the World Heritage Site (WHS) will be the subject 
of another publication (Crutchley forthcoming a), 
but aspects of the archaeological landscape outside 
the WHS will be examined in this paper. 


AERIAL 
RECONNAISSANCE 
HIGHLIGHTS 2000-2002 


From 2000 to 2002 a number of sorties were 


undertaken over Wiltshire covering all the landscape 


zones of the county and assessing the potential for 
cropmark development. Overall the number of 
cropmarks recorded has been very low and of these 
few have been new discoveries. The principal reason 
for this lack of cropmarks has been the record 
amount of rainfall during the winter and crucial 
summer months. Even when the rain has not been 
falling, the numerous overcast days have precluded 
effective aerial photography. At one point there were 
more crop circles than cropmarks in the Avebury 
area. Occasionally good concentrations of 
cropmarks did appear, most notably in the Avon 
Valley south of Salisbury in July 2001 when 
numerous ring ditches of varying forms were 
recorded. Photography from the Avon valley flights 
has yet to be fully evaluated, but a number of these 
ring ditches appear to be newly discovered. 

On 21 June 2001 two new enclosures were 
discovered (SU 108663) to the south of West 
Kennet. On the 1 August 2001 both enclosures were 
photographed again when the cropmarks were 
much clearer, revealing a rectangular enclosure, 
with an entrance on its south east side, and a 
curvilinear enclosure (Figure 1). The enclosures are 
situated either side of a dry valley, which eventually 
opens out in to the Kennet valley near the West 
Kennet palisaded enclosures. The enclosures appear 
to lie within an area of fragmented prehistoric field 
system, which was mapped as part of the Avebury 


Aerial Survey, English Heritage, NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ 


150 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 3. Liddington Hillfort looking south-east following repairs to erosion scars. Since this photograph was taken more 
repairs have taken place on the south side which have also been photographed. NMR 18971/17 12-Jan-2001 © English 
Heritage. NUR 


World Heritage Site Mapping project (Small 1999). 
The field system is not immediately obvious on the 
new photography, so it could be assumed that the 
banks of the field system have been ploughed away 
exposing the ditches of earlier enclosures. The banks 
of the field system that possibly overlie the rectilinear 
enclosure would appear to respect the enclosure 


ditches, implying that the enclosure was still visible 
when the field system was created. The element of 
the field system that overlies the curvilinear 
enclosures would appear to ignore the presence of 
the earlier feature (Crutchley forthcoming b). 
Deciding on a date and function for these enclosures 
on current evidence is difficult. If morphology is 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 151 


an indicator of date, the curvilinear enclosure could 
be part of a prehistoric settlement which may have 
been contemporary with some elements of the 
nearby field systems. The rectilinear enclosure is 
just as difficult to date, but need not be 
contemporary with the curvilinear enclosure. On 
the east side of the curvilinear enclosure the ditch 
curves inwards slightly, which seems to reflect the 
entrance of the rectangular enclosure across the 
valley. Could the fact that both enclosures appear 
to face each other allude to some ritual significance 
with one enclosure being positioned to respect the 
other, or could both entrances provide access to a 
spring in the valley which may have been of practical 
and/or ritual significance? Only with further evidence 
and analysis will we be able to answer such questions. 

While the search for cropmarks is an important 
aspect of English Heritage reconnaissance work, the 
last 10-15 years has seen an increase in demand for 
aerial photography of other types of sites, most 
notably from architectural colleagues (within 
English Heritage) to aid research and 
understanding in urban centres and large building 
complexes. Buildings associated with the Wiltshire 
textile industry have been the focus of attention 
from the late 1990s. More recently, the updating of 
the national Parks and Gardens Register has led to 
a request from the Designed Landscapes team of 
English Heritage for new aerial photography of the 
most important landscaped parks in Wiltshire. So, 
when conditions have allowed, the overall landscape 
design, surviving earthworks, formal gardens and 
follies have been recorded. 

Whenever possible opportunities are taken to 
work in partnership with other organisations. This 
may involve anything from photographing an 
excavation to monitoring areas for cropmarks. A 
major partnership project in 2001 was Timescape 
Wiltshire organised by the Wiltshire County 
Council Archaeology Service. The aim of the project 
was to provide all Wiltshire schools with a CD about 
the archaeology of the county and English Heritage 
was asked to supply digital video images of the 
county’s major monuments from the air. There was 
a steep learning curve to using a hand held digital 
camera to produce broadcast quality video footage, 
but eventually there were enough calm, bright 
winter days to enable the majority of sites to be 
filmed from the air, creating a valuable resource for 


illustration and training purposes. 


An important ongoing task for aerial 
reconnaissance is the monitoring of the condition 
of key monuments in the county from the air. The 


Westbury White Horse was photographed soon after 
the recent cleaning process got under way (Figure 
2), as was the adjacent Bratton Camp in advance 
of repairs to the scars on the ramparts. As well as 
detailed ground survey (Bowden 2001) aerial 
photographs were taken in advance of and after the 
repairs to the eroded ramparts of Liddington Hill 
Fort (Figure 3). Aerial photography has also been 
one of the many techniques used to monitor the 
condition of Silbury Hill following the collapse of 
the 1776 shaft dug by the Duke of Northumberland. 
Every change in the condition of Silbury Hill has 
been recorded from the air, from immediately after 
the hole appeared to the stabilisation of the hole 
with polystyrene blocks and chalk capping. When 
the hole first appeared weather conditions were far 
from ideal for aerial photography, but the need for 
reconnaissance was paramount. It was during one 
such flight in low lighting conditions that the south- 
eastern part of one of the West Kennet palisaded 
enclosures was seen as a cropmark. Given the 
amount of rainfall in the previous months, the 
position of the enclosures so close to the river 
Kennet and the lack of other cropmarks in the 
vicinity, it was a surprise to see any cropmarks in 
the area let alone significant new features. 


LATE NEOLITHIC 
PALISADED 
ENCLOSURES AND 
ASSOCIATED FEATURES 
AT WEST KENNET FARM, 
NEAR AVEBURY 


The existence of the enclosures (see figure 4 for 
location) was first brought to the attention of the 
wider world in the late 1980s through excavations 
by Alasdair Whittle of Cardiff University (Whittle 
1997), those excavations forming part of a broader 
programme of research focusing on the prehistory 
of the Avebury region (see for example Whittle 
1993, 1994, 1997; Whittle et al. 1999). The site, or 
rather a small part of it, had first been observed on 
an aerial photograph taken in 1950 by J.K. St 
Joseph. On that photograph, the two concentric 
palisade ditches of Enclosure 1 show clearly as 
cropmarks in the field south of the River Kennet 
and east of Gunsight Lane (Figure 5, Field 1). 
However, the archaeological significance of these 
cropmarks was not appreciated at the time. 


152 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Avebury 


Silbury Hill , 


ge Remt 3 
Li OR @> ; ee. é 
West Kennet. Sanctuary 
enclosures 


Fig. 4. The location of the West Kennet enclosures in 
relation to the other major later Neolithic monuments in 
the immediate vicinity. ©English Heritage. NUR 


In 1971 (R. Cleal pers. comm.), while 
undertaking a watching brief along the course of a 
pipeline, Faith Vatcher, then curator of the 
Alexander Keiller Museum at Avebury, noted the 
presence of two ditches containing what looked like 
large post-pipes with sarsen packing and charcoal. 
Other features nearby were associated with worked 
flint, animal bone and a single potsherd of late 
Neolithic Grooved Ware. However, no further 
investigation of the site occurred, and it was not 
until 1987 that trial excavation was undertaken at 
the site by Alasdair Whittle following the realisation 
that the features recorded by Vatcher almost 
certainly coincided with the cropmarks visible on 
St Joseph’s photograph. 

Between 1987 and 1992, a combination of aerial 
photography, geophysical survey and excavation saw 
the known extent of the complex increase 
dramatically, primarily to the west as Enclosure 2 
and its associated internal and external features were 
identified, and also to the north as excavations by 
the Trust for Wessex Archaeology (Wessex 
Archaeology 1989;Whittle 1997, 66-9) showed that 
an arc of ditch probably belonging to Enclosure 1 
existed on the other side of the River Kennet. 
Meanwhile, a ditch running south-east from 
Enclosure 2 seemed to connect the complex with 
another circular cropmark feature (Structure 4) 
some 240m away. 

Whittle’s excavations comprised a series of 
trenches across the main enclosure ditches, plus 
additional trenches across some of the internal 
features within Enclosure 2. Enclosure 1 was shown 
to be sub-circular, measuring up to 240m across, 
and defined (to the south of the river at least) by 
two concentric ditches up to 35m apart. Each ditch 


had held a palisade comprising oak timbers up to 
0.40m in diameter and standing to a height of 
perhaps six metres or more above the surface. 
Enclosure 2 is more elliptical in shape, probably 
measuring around 340m across its longer 
northwest-southeast axis, and a minimum of 200m 
in width. The enclosing ditch was markedly similar 
in character to the concentric palisade ditches 
defining Enclosure 1. Enclosure 2 was shown to 
contain, towards its south eastern end, three further 
sub-circular structures, each containing an inner 
and outer concentric circuit. These for the most 
part also held timber palisades. 

Radiocarbon dates obtained from features 
across the whole complex focus on the second half 
of the 3rd millennium BC, placing the enclosures 
towards the end of the Neolithic, though at a time 
when the first copper and bronze metalwork was 
appearing in southern Britain. Apart from a single 
sherd of Middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware, the 
associated pottery was exclusively Grooved Ware — 
no Beaker or Early Bronze Age ceramics were 
encountered. Consequently, establishing a sequence 
of construction, use and abandonment or 
destruction has proved particularly difficult. 
Radiocarbon dates from different features overlap 
considerably, but the complex clearly has the 
appearance of being multi-phase. Whittle (1997, 
156) suggested that the ‘best guess may be that the 
enclosures were constructed and used in succession, 
perhaps overlapping, within a cycle of a few 
generations’. 


West Kennet and air photo 
interpretation 


The West Kennet enclosures serve to emphasize a 
number of key concerns connected with cropmark 
interpretation. As the 37-year gap between St 
Joseph’s photograph and Whittle’s excavations make 
clear, the significance of features visible from the 
air is not always appreciated at the time. Even more 
remarkable is the fact that part of Enclosure 2 is 
clearly visible as a cropmark on a photograph taken 
before the Second World War (NMR AP ref. SU 
1068/9, OGS Crawford Collection, National 
Monuments Record. Photo taken, not necessarily 
by Crawford, sometime between 1925 and 1938: 
G Hall pers. comm.). The site also underlines the 
need for aerial reconnaissance to revisit even 
apparently well-known cropmark sites. The site plan 
published in the excavation report (Whittle 1997, 
fig. 28) is a composite drawn from several years’ 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 153 


1997) = | 
—| 


Watching brief “1989 Excavations 


=} \ 

y/ 

j/ West Kennet 
Farm 


Inner radial — =a 
ditches T&2°| 
\ \ 


Palisade 


Structure x é < i= 1 


a ; | pe 
Structure 2:10 as Outer radial ditch 2 


Palisade enclosure 2 


Structure 1 


Field 1 


Outer radial ditch 3 


IN \ Outer radial ditch 1 


PX 
a 


Field 3 


\ 
P56. \ Ay 


Plough levelled round | 
barrows 


| Structure 3 


Gunsight eae 


~ 


“ie ae 
=e 
a 


Metres 


Fig. 5. The current extent of the West Kennet complex, 

pies \ y with an enlarged view of the detail visible at the north 

end of Field 1. Archaeological features are highlighted in 

green. Most are plotted from air photographs, though 

. x some additional detail has been taken from geophysical 

Structure 3 rN x ~ : surveys and excavation plans. The labelling of individual 

‘ce Putte coro, features follows that used by Whittle (1997), with new 

i ce features numbered accordingly. © English Heritage. NMR. 

Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 
1:2500 scale, — Crown copyright reserved. 


Structure 1 


excavation and geophysical survey, but owes much 


>) to aerial reconnaissance and photography from 
} J 1950 to 1992. Since Whittle’s excavations ended, 


new detail has continued to appear sporadically as 
cropmarks, with the summer of 2000 being 
particularly productive (for Field 2 at least). 
Furthermore, it is important to remember that 
air photo interpretation is itself a highly subjective 
process, particularly in an area such as this. 


154 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Although the broad outlines of the main features 
are relatively clear, the finer detail is more 
problematic, particularly given the local soils. For 
all three fields concerned, frequent darker patches 
of deeper soil either obscure archaeological 
cropmarks or prevent their formation completely. 
In some places, it is extremely difficult to decide 
whether darker patches visible on the photographs 
are of archaeological or natural origin. 


What’s new? 


The complex as known to circa 1992 is fully 
described in the final excavation report (Whittle 
1997). The site plan published there (ibid., fig. 28) 
should be compared with Figure 5 here in order to 
appreciate the extent of additions and alterations. 
Here it is only intended to describe features 
recognised since 1992 and their implications for 
understanding the complex as a whole. 41 
photographs taken in May and July 2000 provided 
the bulk of the new detail. The principal ‘new’ 
features are as follows: 


ilk A small pit or post-circle located between the 
inner and outer palisade ditches of Enclosure 1. The circle 
is about 9.5m in maximum external diameter and features 
clear gaps in its circuit to the north-west and south-west. 
The cropmarks are not clearly defined, but a minimum 
of 21 pits can be counted. The size and form of the circle 
resemble the inner ring of Structure 2 within Enclosure 
2. Excavated in 1992, that ring was of similar size and 
comprised up to 22 post-pits with a clear entrance gap 
on the south side. The large sub-rectangular feature east 
of the ‘new’ post-circle is difficult to interpret, but need 
not be contemporary with the late Neolithic features. 

2: Additional detail associated with Inner Radial 
Ditches 1 and 2 inside Enclosure 2. The ditch of Enclosure 
2 itself now appears to feature an entrance, possibly 
flanked by larger terminal posts, roughly midway between 
the two radial ditches. The funnel shape formed by the 
two radials is crossed by two further lengths of ditch, 
each of these also featuring an entrance. The western 
cross-ditch again has large terminal post-pits on either 
side of this entrance. The cropmark of the eastern cross- 
ditch is not defined with sufficient clarity to be sure that 
a similar entrance arrangement exists there. Interestingly, 
the three entrances do not align perfectly, and so would 
not have provided a clear line of sight into or out of the 
enclosure. 

3. A ‘new’ enclosure (Structure 5) exists at the 
southern end of Gunsight Lane, apparently connected to 
Enclosure 2 by a straight radial ditch running south east 
from the latter. The course of this ditch cannot be seen in 


its entirety, but Outer Radial Ditch 1 can now be seen to 
pursue an unbroken course (except where crossed by 
Gunsight Lane) between Enclosure 2 and Structure 4. It 
may be therefore that Structure 5 was also connected to 
Enclosure 2 by a continuous radial ditch. If so, its length 
would be c.220m. Intriguingly, as it approaches the outer 
ditch of Enclosure 2 this radial ditch appears to turn 
northwards and continue into Enclosure 2’s interior. On 
present evidence, it is impossible to be certain but 
Structure 3 may butt up against a continuation of this 
ditch, while Structure 2 overlaps it, although this would 
need confirmation by geophysical survey or excavation. 
Structure 5, meanwhile, is partly obscured by substantial 
farm buildings. It is far from being a perfect circle, but 
the visible cropmarks suggest a diameter of around 90m. 
Off-centre and equally irregular in outline is an inner 
enclosure measuring a minimum of 40m across. There 
appears to be a gap in this inner circuit facing north west 
although it is not clear if this is genuine. The inner 
enclosure contains a number of large pit-like features 
arranged in no discernible order. Given the nature of the 
soil conditions, it is impossible to be sure, but few if any 
such pits appear to lie in the area between the inner and 
outer enclosure ditches. 

4, Outer Radial Ditch 2 is a curving length of 
ditch that appears to connect Enclosure 1 with Enclosure 
2. However, the photographs taken in 2000 show this 
ditch continuing across the outer ditch of Enclosure 1, 
where it can be traced for 10 metres or so before the 
cropmark merges with darker soil against the edge of 
the field. Consequently it is impossible to judge whether 
or not it continues to meet the inner ditch of the 
enclosure. 

5s A narrow ditch runs roughly parallel with and 
south of the inner ditch of Enclosure 1. Bisected at one 
point by another narrow ditch, it is impossible to trace 
this feature with any certainty into Field 1. Consequently 
it cannot at present be directly associated with any 
components of the Late Neolithic complex. 


Discussion 


The new features revealed by English Heritage 
aerial reconnaissance have offered more detail and 
raised more questions about the functions and 
phasing of an already complex site. There are, 
additionally, some hints that more awaits discovery, 
particularly in the field south of Field 1, which 
contains glimpses of straight, linear features and, 
at its southern edge, a further double concentric 
circular enclosure. It is also possible, though far 
from certain, that Outer Radial Ditch 1 continues 
to the south east beyond Structure 4. 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 


Fig. 1. New enclosures discovered in 2001 situated either side of a dry valley. Photograph taken looking south. NUR 
21271/20 01-Aug-2001. © English Heritage. NUR 


Fig. 7. Archaeological features (banks in red, ditches in green) between Ogbury Hillfort (bottom left) and Amesbury 
Down (top right). A field system is situated in the interior of the fort. A large ditched enclosure to the south west of 
Salisbury Clumps is linked to a network of linear ditches which passes through remnants of prehistoric field systems 
and appears to use prehistoric funerary monuments as markers. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced 
from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 maps SU 13 NW and SU 13 NE, Crown copyright reserved. 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Hooklands 
“ij Plantation 


a) > 
work = C 
Go Ris 


Smitshen 


, Mase 


Police 
Iralass Station 


Fig. 8. Archaeological features on Woodford and Smithen Downs (banks in red, ditches in green). Extensive prehistoric 
field systems are situated around the enclosure on Heale Hill. The possible Roman villa or late Iron Age viereckschanze 
is near the top left of the map. Post medieval water meadows can be seen in the valley bottom by Woodford village in the 
lower right of the map. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 map 
SU 13 NW, Crown copyright reserved. 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 


Fig. 9. Archaeological features between Amesbury Down and the River Bourne (banks in red, ditches in green). Prehistoric 
or Roman ditched enclosures are linked by a series of linear ditches. Possible aggregate field systems are situated north 
of Cusse’s Gorse in the centre-left of the map. © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance 
Survey 1:10000 map SU 13 NE, Crown copyright reserved. 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 11. Possible settlement enclosures, linear ditches and field systems to the north-west of Druid’s Lodge (banks in 
red, ditches in green). © English Heritage. NMR. Map background reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 maps 
SU 03 NE and SU 13 NW, Crown copyright reserved. 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE itis 35) 


Much of the interior of Enclosure 2 remains 
seemingly empty, with cropmark evidence currently 
providing only the merest hint that archaeological 
features lie among the darker patches of soil. 
Meanwhile, most of Enclosure 1 lies outside of 
arable land altogether and we are presumably reliant 
on further planning applications, such as that which 
led to confirmation of the presence of a palisade 
ditch west of Gunsight Lane in 1997 (Eyre-Morgan 
1997), to discover what lies north of the river. 

Perhaps the most eye-catching feature of the 
recent photography is the circle of pits or post-holes 
between the palisade ditches of Enclosure 1. The 
clarity of the cropmark is particularly surprising 
given the absence of this feature on earlier 
photographs, even though other features in the 
vicinity were clearly visible. Of the circle itself, little 
else can be said at present, though clearly it would 
be useful to know its chronological relationships 
with nearby features including the inner and outer 
palisades of Enclosure 1. 

An increasingly common theme being explored 
among the landscapes of the later Neolithic 
concerns the presence of formalised approaches to 
or pathways between monuments of the period. At 
Avebury, as is well-known, such prescribed routes 
occur on a considerable scale. The sarsen-lined West 
Kennet Avenue, for example, is presumed to pass 
by the palisade complex a short distance to the 
north-east en route between the Sanctuary and 
Avebury itself. The smaller ‘funnel’ formed by Inner 
Radial Ditches 1 and 2 echoes in miniature such 
constructions, although a better parallel might be 
the post-screens and the post-defined approach 
leading to the northern timber circle within the 
Durrington Walls henge (Wainwright and 
Longworth 1971; Barrett 1994, fig. 1.10), or the 
posthole structures associated with Stonehenge’s 
southern entrance (Cleal et al. 1995, 1604-5, 483). 
In the case of West Kennet Enclosure 2, it appears 
that passage through the entrance in the enclosure’s 
outer ditch marked the beginning of a journey 
towards Structure 3, a double concentric feature 
comprising an outer and inner ring of timbers with 
a single substantial upright post within the central 
area. Whittle’s 1997 plan depicts an entrance gap 
on the eastern side of the outer circuit of Structure 
3, aligning broadly but not exactly with the 
staggered openings through the cross-ditches. 


Although a similar gap is shown on the plan 


presented here, it is important to stress that this is 
not because a genuine break appears in the 
cropmark at that point, but because the cropmark 


evidence is obscured by vehicle tracks and crop 
damage. Neither an entrance nor a continuous ditch 
can be assumed on the basis of the available 
photographs. 

Only excavation can confirm how much of the 
complex comprises timber palisades. Virtually all 
of the features examined so far held substantial and 
continuous walls or screens of oak, and it would be 
intriguing to discover if the same applies to 
Structures 4 and 5 and to Outer Radial Ditch 3, 
for example. If so, and if contemporary, then Outer 
Radial Ditches 1 and 3 might have a formed a 
massive funnel-like approach to Enclosure 2, 
though the possibility that Outer Radial Ditch 3 
crosses into Enclosure 2 clearly raises questions 
about phasing; likewise the indications that Outer 
Radial Ditch 2 continues beyond the outer ditch of 
Enclosure 1. Does it in fact terminate at that 
enclosure’s inner ditch? 

As noted above, understanding how the 
complex developed has proved difficult on the basis 
of the excavation results. The new cropmark 
evidence, while not providing any clear answers, 
has nonetheless underlined the extent to which this 
was a multi-phase complex rather than a single 
planned entity. Palisade-defined enclosures are an 
increasingly widely recognised phenomenon of the 
British later Neolithic (e.g. Whittle 1997, 158-63; 
Thomas 2001) and beyond (e.g. Gibson 2002), 
many of them characterised by the complexity and 
structural elaboration that also characterises the 
West Kennet site. The features depicted can be seen 
to represent a series of major constructional events 
that repeatedly influenced and altered the ways in 
which the complex as a whole and individual parts 
of it could be used and understood, a role also 
performed for us today by the results of continued 
aerial reconnaissance. 


ASPECTS OF THE 
STONEHENGE WORLD 
HERITAGE SITE 
MAPPING PROJECT 


The primary aim of the Stonehenge World Heritage 
Site mapping project was to provide an up-to-date 
interpretation and map of all the archaeology visible 
on aerial photographs, in advance of the 
development of the new Stonehenge visitor centre 
and the tunnelling of the A303. A full report on the 


156 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


project will be produced in due course (Crutchley 
forthcoming a), but this will concentrate largely on 
the management aspects of the project dealing only 
with certain examples of archaeology which will be 
most affected by the proposed developments. As 
the air photographic interpretation progressed it was 
felt that there would be some merit in highlighting 
the archaeological landscapes to the south of the 
well-studied areas of the Stonehenge environs 
(RCHME 1979, Cleal et al. 1995, Crutchley 
forthcoming a), which might otherwise be 
overlooked. 

The Stonehenge WHS survey consulted 
thousands of specialist oblique aerial photographs 
and historic vertical photographs held by the 
National Monuments Record (NMR), Wiltshire 
Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) and 
Cambridge University. The photographs were 
interpreted, rectified and synthesised to produce a 
digital map, at 1:10,000 scale, of all archaeological 
features dating from prehistory to the Second World 
War. The interpretative information has also been 
recorded in the NMR’s archaeological database and 
incorporated into the county SMR. 

‘The area under discussion comprises a 15 x 5km 
block of land which includes the southern tip of 
the WHS. This area of chalk downland is cut roughly 
north-south by three river valleys, of the Till and 
Wylye on the west side, the Avon in the centre and 
the Bourne on the east (Figure 6), which all flow 
off the uplands of Salisbury Plain. The land use in 
the second half of the 20th century has been large- 
scale arable cultivation. This has major implications 
for archaeological survey: there is much less 
opportunity for the kind of detailed earthwork 
survey carried out on the Salisbury Plain (McOmish 
et al. 2002), with the notable exceptions of the 
Medieval settlement at Wilsford cum Lake 
(RCHME 1986), the prehistoric enclosures at 
Ebsbury Hill. (Corney 1989), Heale Hill (RCHME 
1988a) and Ogbury (RCHME 1988b), as well as 
the few barrows still extant on Lake Down. The 
arable fields, however, do reveal a wealth of sub- 
surface archaeological features as cropmarks. The 
archaeology in the area between the rivers Wylye 
and Bourne could be described as typical of the 
Wessex chalk downland. Hilltops and slopes are 
covered in prehistoric and/or Roman field systems 
interspersed with prehistoric settlements and 
Bronze Age funerary monuments. The medieval and 
post medieval settlement is along the river valleys, 
with the flood plains almost entirely given over to 
water meadows. 


Rivers Salisbury Plain WHS 


Training Area 


Newly mapped 
boundary area 

Fig. 6. General location diagram showing the relationship 
between the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and the 
newly mapped areas to the south. © English 
Heritage. NMR 


The remainder of this paper will concentrate, 
however, on the prehistoric and possible Roman 
remains found as part of the survey. Using the 
Salisbury Plain survey (McOmish et al. 2002) as a 
comparison, the form, distribution and challenges 
of dating and attempting to understand cropmark 
landscapes will be discussed. 


Prehistoric field systems 


The dating of prehistoric or so-called ‘Celtic’ fields 
has been much discussed (McOmish et al. 2002, 
51-6). Research so far points to the creation of 
field systems on the chalk downlands of Wessex 
from the Bronze Age, for example on the 
Marlborough Downs (Gingell 1992) and parts of 
the Salisbury Plain, through to the Romano British 
period, as found on the Lambourn Downs 
(Bowden et al. 1993). The field systems in the area 
to the south of the World Heritage Site, between 
the rivers Till and Bourne are difficult to date 
mainly because of their poor state of preservation. 
The mid to late 20th-century practice of cross 
ploughing has also made identification of early field 
systems difficult as the plough patterns sometimes 
persist through several years as cropmarks and can 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE Dif, 


have a similar appearance to ploughed out ancient 
fields. 

The field systems in the survey area are diverse 
in character, in contrast to the extensive and 
seemingly regimented northeast-southwest 
orientated coaxial systems on Salisbury Plain. Some 
possible examples of the earliest type of ‘coaxial’ 
fields identified on the Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 
55), can be seen to the south west of the hilltop 
enclosure at Heale Hill and inside the large 
enclosure on Ogbury Hill (Figures 7-8). Examples 
of fields comparable to the ‘aggregate’ fields on the 
Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 56) can be seen around 
Cusses’s Gorse (Figure 9) and these could be an 
example of a system which has been re-modelled 
over a number of years. The re-use and adaptation 
of the earlier ‘coaxial’ field systems seems to have 
been a common occurrence on the Salisbury Plain 
(McOmish et al. 2002, 54-6). Many of the fields to 
the south of Stonehenge appear to have been 
enlarged, for example those on Lake Down and 
Stapleford Down, and could be compared to those 
on the periphery of the field systems in the SPTA 
at Orcheston Down (McOmish et al. 2002, 54). 
Where they appear as parallel lynchets on some of 
the steeper slopes in the river valleys, for example 
to the east of Heale Hill (Figure 8), it is possible 
that parts of the prehistoric fields have been 
ploughed and adapted during the medieval or post- 
medieval periods. 

The variety of form suggests that although the 
field systems to the south of Stonehenge are almost 
certainly prehistoric, perhaps Bronze Age, in origin, 
they do not, however, seem as extensive or as 
organised as those on the Plain. This could be 


because they had a more piecemeal development 
through later prehistory and in some areas may 
have been altered in the Roman and/or medieval 
periods. 


Prehistoric linear boundaries 


The other major method of land division recorded 
as part of the survey, and common in Wessex, is the 
substantial ditched boundary, sometimes called a 
‘ranch’ boundary (McOmish et al. 2002, 56-66). 
Comparisons with excavated evidence and detailed 
analysis of earthworks elsewhere in Wessex suggests 
that this type of boundary dates from the late 2nd 
millennium BC, with re-working or construction 
carrying on through the Ist millennium BC 
(McOmish et al. 2002, 61; Corney 1989; Ford 
1982). The boundaries mapped to the south of 
Stonehenge were all defined by single ditches and 
the dating of these features can be problematic 
except where they have a clear stratigraphic 
relationship with more securely dated features. 
Where a possible relationship is visible between the 
system of boundaries and the field systems to the 
south of Stonehenge it is not clear which is the 
earlier feature. For example, where a boundary 
passes through the field system at Cusse’s Gorse 
(Figure 9), and also near Salisbury Clumps (Figure 
7), it is unclear if the ditch follows the line of the 
lynchets or vice versa. In contrast, many of the 
boundaries and enclosures, especially between 
Amesbury Down and Winterbourne Gunner 
(Figure 9), appear to be contemporary and further 
investigation of the relationships between these 
features could prove useful. 


S z =) aN » “ 
\ rN > a f ES 
\ ham @ x 5 Na VA io 
SN ® fe i uN ay ? i pes @ 


than 200m. 


Curvilinear enclosure e Curvilinear enclosure 
@ with dimension greater 


| Linear ditch 
DX 


Fig. 10. Distribution of prehistoric and/or Roman curvilinear enclosures and linear ditches in relation to topography 
between the rivers Till and Bourne. ©English Heritage. NMR. 


158 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


The general distribution of the boundaries to 
the south of Stonehenge seems to mirror that found 
further north on the Plain (McOmish et al. 2002, 
61) as there is an apparent clustering of boundaries 
on the lower-lying ground between the rivers Avon 
and Bourne (Figure 10).The systems of boundaries 
to the east and west of the Avon appear to have 
slightly differing relationships with other features 
in the landscape. For example, the boundaries on 
Lake Down, to the west of the river, may demarcate 
the areas between clusters of barrows or 
alternatively they could be following the northeast- 
southwest ridges, perhaps forming a corridor down 
to the river. The boundaries to the east of the Avon 
seem to have a more complex relationship with the 
enclosures and field systems: as well as seeming to 
use barrows as markers (e.g. on Amesbury Down: 
Figure 7, 9), they also appear to form a system 
between the enclosures. These boundaries which 
extend between the Avon and the Bourne seem to 
control access and/or divide the land between the 
upper slope and the river Bourne. The apparent 
pattern of the boundaries in the survey area, laid 
out in reference to a mix of man-made and natural 
features, is typical of the Wessex chalk downland 
(McOmish et al. 2002, 61; Corney 1989, 111-28; 
Ford 1982). 

These boundaries could have acted as simple 
land divisions, perhaps distinguishing the stock 
‘ranches’ from the arable areas. It is also likely that 
the pattern of boundaries is the product of different 
practical and social issues tied up with farming of 
the land, possible territorial groups and what seems 
to be a sensitivity to the funerary monuments 
created by former inhabitants of the area. 


Enclosures 


Although the excavated evidence from elsewhere 
in Wessex (McOmish 1989, Cunliffe 1991, 213-20) 
suggests that morphology does not provide a 
particularly reliable chronology, the mapping of the 
details and precise form of the enclosures to the 
south of Stonehenge does provide a starting point 
for analysis and potential classification schemes 
which can be tested by further investigation. 
There are a few cropmark enclosures which may 
form a distinct group of larger enclosures, each with 
a length of at least 200m (Figure 10). These 
enclosures are comparable to the earthwork 
enclosure at Heale Hill in size and topographical 
position, below the crest of a hill. A survey of the 
Heale Hill earthworks suggested that the prehistoric 


fields post-date the enclosure, implying possible 
Neolithic or Bronze Age origins (RCHME 1988a). 
Morphologically similar enclosures are situated on 
Amesbury Down and north-west of Druid’s Lodge 
(Figure 7, 11). The internal features, possible 
storage/rubbish pits and boundaries, suggest that 
the enclosure at Druid’s Lodge probably functioned 
as a settlement at some point. 

The remainder of the enclosures in the survey 
area vary in size and in minor details in their form, 
but in general all are defined by at least one ditch 
and enclose an irregular curvilinear area. None of 
these cropmark enclosures has been excavated, but 
morphological comparison to other excavated 
enclosures suggests that this type of enclosure has 
a date range from the late Bronze Age through to 
the Roman period, with the majority probably 
established at some point in the Iron Age (Cunliffe 
1991 213-20; McOmish et al. 2002, 83, 155). 

Comparison of the cropmark enclosures 
situated to the south of Stonehenge with those 
excavated elsewhere in Wessex suggests their 
function within the landscape is likely to be complex 
(Cunliffe 1991; McOmish et al. 2002, 71). Some 
may be stock enclosures associated with open 
settlement, others may be enclosing settlement and/ 
or other types of non-domestic activity. Studies of 
the function of late prehistoric enclosures 
throughout Britain also suggest the possibility of 
complex social activities associated with the 
building, maintenance and use of enclosed spaces 
(Hingley 1984, Bowden and McOmish 1987). It is 
possible that we are seeing an extension of this 
beyond the confines of the enclosure into the wider 
landscape with the systems of boundaries associated 
with the enclosures. Perhaps the presence of 
attached boundaries, rather than the details of form, 
is a distinguishing factor between the date or 
function of the enclosures. 

The possible settlements recorded almost 
certainly represent a partial picture of the general 
pattern because unenclosed settlements, which are 
less likely to show as cropmarks, are not represented. 
It is also unclear how, or if, the hillforts at Ogbury 
or Ebsbury relate to the general distribution of 
enclosures. There does appear to be a clustering of 
settlement on the slopes overlooking the rivers Avon 
or Bourne in the southern part of the survey area 
and further investigation is required to ascertain 
the significance, if any, of this (Figure 10). 

It is hoped that the mapping of these enclosures 
will provide a framework for further work in this 
area. Particularly important are the relative 


FROM PIT CIRCLES TO PROPELLERS: RECENT AERIAL SURVEY IN WILTSHIRE 159 


chronologies of possible settlements, field systems 
and linear boundaries. 


Roman Settlement 


Many of the enclosures may have continued in use 
during the Romano-British period, but there is one 
site to the north-east of Heale Hill (Figure 8) which 
could be Roman in origin. The site consists of a 
double ditched rectilinear enclosure with an 
entrance on its east side linked to another possible 
enclosure to the east by a trackway. This could be 
the site of a villa, commonly associated with double 
ditched enclosures. More exotic is the possibility 
that it is comparable to the putative late Iron Age 
viereckschanze found at Casterley Camp, however 
it does not have the setting or associations of that 
site (McOmish et al. 2002, 59, 155, 160). 


Discussion 


The archaeology to the south of the Stonehenge 
WHS has been compared to that on Salisbury Plain 
on a number of occasions. Both areas exhibit 
extensive prehistoric field systems, linear boundaries 
and settlements, but differ markedly in the current 
land management. The archaeology of Salisbury 
Plain is relatively safe from modern ploughing, and 
the area in the immediate vicinity of Stonehenge is 
likely be taken out of arable cultivation, but the 
archaeology in the area to the south continues to 
be denuded. Questions have been raised about the 
relative chronologies of the prehistoric field systems, 
linear boundaries and settlements and further 
survey work is required to answer these questions. 
Initially, targeted aerial reconnaissance and 
interpretation can be used to try and answer some 
of the questions raised, but there is a need for more 
geophysical survey and excavation before the 
archaeology is destroyed. 


Twentieth-Century Military 
Remains 


At this stage there is not enough space to discuss 
the medieval and post medieval archaeology, but it 
is worth briefly mentioning some of the few 20th- 
century military features in the area. One of 
Wiltshire’s earliest civilian airfields, founded by the 
‘Wiltshire Flying Club in 1931, was situated at High 
Post, between Netton and Winterbourne Dauntsey. 
Snapshots of some of the activities which took place 
at the airfield during World War II are visible on 


RAF vertical photographs taken between 1942 and 
1946, when No. 112 squadron of the Royal 
Canadian Air Force was based there. Following the 
bombing of the main Spitfire factories, in particular 
at Eastleigh in 1940, High Post became a Spitfire 
assembly and testing site. A vertical photograph 
taken in 1943 shows a cluster of three blade 
propellers adjacent to the main buildings at the 
airfield and it is possible these are for Lysanders or 
early Spitfires. The Supermarine prototype TS409 
was also initially test flown at High Post but ceased 
when the jet exhaust began to erode the grass 
runways. The airfield was decommissioned when 
Boscombe Down airfield was expanded and many 
of the structures associated with the former airfield 
have been removed including pillboxes and a camp 
to the east at Cusses’s Gorse. 


CONCLUSION 


Even in particularly bad years for cropmark 
formation significant new discoveries can be made 
and a continuous aerial reconnaissance programme 
is a useful tool in monitoring the condition of the 
county’s archaeological monuments. The scope of 
reconnaissance and air photographic interpretation 
is expanding to include other disciplines such as 
garden history, urban survey and modern military 
remains. Eventually more of Wiltshire’s archaeology 
which is visible on aerial photographs will be 
investigated as part of the National Mapping 
Programme and so the concentration of prehistoric 
field systems, linear boundaries and settlements 
described above can be compared to other parts of 
the region. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND 
CONTACTS 

The authors would like to thank the pilots Mick Webb 
and Marten White for their enthusiasm and com- 
mitment over the past few ‘cropmark-free’ summers 
and their skill in keeping the aircraft steady enough 
to use the video camera. Thanks to Rachel Gale and 
her team in the NMRC Darkrooms for all the pro- 
cessing and printing, Geoff Hall for checking the 
undated Crawford Collection print, Katy Groves and 
Rose Ogle for cataloguing all the photographs and 
Kelly Scutts/ Dave Gorman for arranging our 
photographic loans. The new plan of the West Kennet 
complex builds on previous plots produced by 
RCHME and English Heritage, in particular the 
1:2500 scale plan produced in 1992 by Simon 


160 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Crutchley (RCHME 1992) and the 1:10000 scale 
plan produced by Fiona Small as part of a National 
Mapping Programme project (Small 1999). Ad- 
ditional information was kindly provided by Mike 
Hamilton (University of Wales College, Newport), 
Lorraine Mepham (Wessex Archaeology), Sue Farr 
(Wiltshire County Council Archaeology Service), 
Ros Cleal (Alexander Keiller Museum) and Professor 
Alasdair Whittle (Cardiff University). Particular thanks 
to Deborah Cunliffe for producing the illustrations. 

For copies of aerial photographs, reports or 
plans contact NMR Enquiry and Research Services, 
NMRC, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ. Any 
organisation undertaking a survey or excavation that 
could be aided by new aerial photography should 
contact Damian Grady, Aerial Survey, NMRC, 
Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ. 


Bibliography 


BARRETT, J.C., 1994, Fragments from Antiquity. An 
Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. 
Oxford: Blackwell 

BEWLEY, R.H., 2001, Understanding England’s Historic 
Landscapes: An Aerial Perspective. Landscapes 2(1), 
74-84 

BOWDEN, M., 2001, Liddington Castle: archaeological 
earthwork survey. Swindon: English Heritage 

BOWDEN, M., FORD, S. and MEES, G., 1993, The 
Date of the Ancient Fields on the Berkshire Downs. 
Berkshire Archaeological Journal 74, 109-133 

BOWDEN, M. and MCOMISH, D., 1987, The required 
barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4(2), 76-84 

CLEAL, R.M.J., WALKER, K.E. and MONTAGUE, R., 
1995, Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth- 
century excavations. London: English Heritage, 
Archaeological Report 10 

CORNEY, M.C., 1989, ‘Multiple ditch systems and Late 
Iron Age settlement in Central Wessex’, in Bowden 
M., Mackay D. and Topping P. (eds), From Cornwall 
to Caithness: Some aspects of British Field 
Archaeology, 111-128. Oxford: British Archaeological 
Report 209 

CRUTCHLEY, S.P., forthcoming a, Stonehenge World 
Heritage Site Mapping Project: Management Report. 
Swindon: English Heritage 

CRUTCHLEY, S.P., forthcoming b, ‘Recent Aerial 
Survey Work in the Marlborough Downs Region’, in 
D. Field, G. Brown and D. McOmish (eds), The Field 
Archaeology of the Marlborough Downs. Oxford: 
Oxbow Books 

CUNLIFFE, B., 1991, Iron Age Communities in Britain. 
(3rd edition) London: Routledge 

EYRE-MORGAN, G., 1997, Manor House, West 
Kennett, Avebury. An Archaeological Evaluation. 
Hyde, Cheshire: Graham Eyre-Morgan 


FORD, S., 1982, Linear Earthworks on the Berkshire 
Downs. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 71, 1-20 


GIBSON, A., (ed.) 2002, Behind Wooden Walls: Neolithic ' 


Palisaded Enclosures in Europe. Oxford: British 
Archaeological Reports, International Series 1013 

GINGELL, C., 1992, The Marlborough Downs: a later 
Bronze Age Landscape and tts origins. Devizes: WANHS 

HINGLEY, R., 1984, ‘Towards social analysis in 
archaeology: Celtic society in the Iron Age of the 
Upper Thames Valley (400-OBC)’, in B. Cunliffe and 
D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central 
Southern Britain, 72-88. Oxford: University of 
Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 2 

McOMISH, D., FIELD, D. and BROWN, G., 2002, The 
Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain. Swindon: 
English Heritage 

RCHME, 1979, Stonehenge and its environs. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press 

RCHME, 1986, Lake Deserted Medieval Village, South 
Wiltshire Project. Archive Report (922387). 
Salisbury: RCHME 

RCHME, 1988a, Hooklands Plantation, Heale Hill, 
South Wiltshire Project. Archive Report (921992). 
Salisbury: RCHME 

RCHME, 1988b, Ogbury hillfort, South Wiltshire Project. 
Archive Report (922002). Salisbury: RCHME 

RCHME, 1992, West Kennett-East Kennett. 
Archaeological Survey in the vicinity of the Avebury 
World Heritage Site. Air Photographic Transcription 
and Analysis. Swindon: RCHME 

SMALL, F., 1999, Avebury World Heritage Site Mapping 
Project, Wiltshire. English Heritage Survey Report. 
Swindon: English Heritage 

THOMAS, J., 2001, ‘Neolithic Enclosures: reflections 
on excavations in Wales and Scotland’, in T. Darvill 
and J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic 
Northwest Europe, 131-143. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

WAINWRIGHT, G.J. and LONGWORTH, I.H., 1971, 
Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966-1968. London: 
Society of Antiquaries of London, Reports of the 
Research Committee 29 

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY 1989, West Kennet Farm, 
West Kennet, Marlborough, Wiltshire. Archaeological 
Evaluation 1989. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex 
Archaeology 

WHITTLE, A., 1993, The Neolithic of the Avebury area: 
sequence, environment, settlement and monuments. 
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12, 29-53 

WHITTLE, A., 1994, Excavations at Millbarrow 
Neolithic chambered tomb, Winterbourne Monkton, 
north Wiltshire. WANHM 87, 1-53 

WHITTLE, A., 1997, Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. 
Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures: 
a Later Neolithic complex in north Wiltshire. Oxford: 
Oxbow Books 

WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J. and GRIGSON, C., 1999. 
The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill Hill 
causewayed enclosure, Wiltshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 161-194 


Beaker Presence at Wilsford 7 
by Humphrey Case! 
with contributions by Paul Robinson’ and Alison Hopper-Bishop’ 


The Collared Urn in the well known Early Bronze Age grave assemblage from Wilsford barrow 7, excavated 
by William Cunnington and Richard Colt Hoare in 1808 and in the Museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological 
and Natural History Society since 1878, was re-conserved in 1990 by the Wiltshire County Council 
Conservation Centre. Its original conservation was by William Cunnington himself soon after excavation; 
and there is no reason to believe that any other conservation was made between then and 1990. The 
discovery in 1990 that a Beaker sherd had been incorporated in the earlier restoration implies that the 
sherd was part of the assemblage excavated in 1808. 

Presumption of a direct Beaker association with an early Wessex Series grave assemblage of the first 
quarter of the 2nd millennium BC leads to a demonstration of the Beaker roots of similar assemblages. 
These assemblages are seen as showing the transformation of the material culture of the Beaker elite 
responsible for Stonehenge - transformation through local inspiration and inventiveness and through far- 
flung contacts including north British, Irish and especially Breton contacts, although somewhat Jess so 
central European. These Breton contacts are seen in the Barrow Grave assemblages, which were current 
from the later 3rd millennium BC to towards the mid 2nd, and which are themselves taken to show ultimate 
development and transformation of the continental Bell-Beaker material culture which had itself originated 
in Atlantic Europe in the earlier 3rd millennium BC. 

In the course of argument it 1s proposed that Wessex Series women’s graves should not be seen as 
necessarily later than men’s and that both the Barrow Graves and the Wessex Series habitually contain 
objects of centuries-old tradition alongside more up-to-date innovations. 

Wiltshire and Dorset barrows are identified following Grinsell (1957, 1959). 


from Wilsford 5 (‘Bush Barrow’) and about 96 


INTRODUCTION 
by Paul Robinson 


The barrow designated by L.V.Grinsell as Wilsford 
7 lies at SU 1179 4123 in the Normanton Down 
barrow cemetery to the south of Stonehenge. It is a 
bowl barrow, although incorrectly classed by Sir 
Richard Colt Hoare as a bell barrow. Hoare records 
that in 1808 it measured 102 feet (31m) in diameter 
and stood 10 feet (3m) above ground level (1812, 


~ 202). It lies close to and about 146 metres distant 


metres from Wilsford 8 in the Normanton Down 
barrow cemetery (Fig. 3A). At both these barrows, 
exceptionally prestigious objects, including some 
made from gold, as with Wilsford 7, were found 
among the grave goods of the primary burials. 
The barrow was excavated by Sir Richard Colt 
Hoare and William Cunnington I in 1808. The 
published record of the excavation (Hoare 1812, 
202 and pl. XXV) is disappointingly brief and 
conflicts with some details in the preliminary notes 
made by William Cunnington and preserved in the 


' Pitt’s Cottage, 187 Thame Road, Warborough, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 7DH *The Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes, SN10 
1NS °* Exeter City Museum Conservation Service, Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Queen Street, Exeter EX4 3RX 


162 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


—_ 


ae 


Se 
LEE E EEE ELLE 


Fig. 1. Beaker sherd, Collared Urn, and Grape Cup from Wilsford 7. No. 1 at actual size, 2-3 at 1:2 


Library of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 
History Society at Devizes (Cunnington MSS Book 
9, pp. 29-30) compiled at his dictation by his 
amanuensis, Elizabeth Cunnington, his daughter. 
What is presumed to have been the primary burial 
was found ‘in a very shallow oblong cist’. The head 
lay ‘nearly west’ and the possibility cannot be 
excluded that the skeleton was extended. (At Bush 
Barrow the head lay to the south and the suggestion 


can be made that the skeleton was similarly 
extended.) In accordance with their normal 
practice, the skeleton was not removed from the 
grave. No anatomical records were made. The grave 
goods infer that the person buried was female (but 
see below, pp. 171-2). 

An unspecified number of objects were found 
with the burial. These include a group of beads and 
pendants made of gold sheet, amber, jet or shale, 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


fossil encrinite and perhaps other stone. Hoare 
(1812, 202) infers that these were all found together 
as ‘a deposit of various elegant little trinkets’. The 
Cunnington MSS records that the two gold beads 
were found near the head without making it clear 
whether or not the other beads and pendants were 
found with them. The inference is that all the beads 
and pendants were probably found together by the 
head. In addition, an incense cup (Grape Cup: Fig. 
1, no. 3) was found, its position in the grave not 
being reported; while a broken Collared Urn of 
Longworth’s primary series, Form B1 (Fig. 1, no. 
2; Longworth 1984, 289) was placed ‘at the feet of 
the skeleton’. 

William Cunnington died in 1810, and in 1818 
the artefacts from Wiltshire and Dorset excavated 
by Colt Hoare and himself were purchased by Colt 
Hoare from Cunnington’s descendants. Colt Hoare 
removed them to his residence Stourhead House. 
Thence, in 1878 they were loaned to the WANHS 
and deposited in the Society’s Museum at Devizes; 
they were purchased by the Society outright in 1883, 
becoming known as the Stourhead Collection. The 
grave finds from Wilsford 7 were published in the 
catalogue of that collection (Cunnington and 
Goddard 1896, nos. 140-2, 145a-6 and 280) as well 
as in the more recent catalogue of the Museum’s 
Neolithic and Bronze Age collections (Annable and 
Simpson 1964, 44, nos. 147-158). Both of these lists 
of objects differ in detail from those given by 
Cuninngton and Colt Hoare. This is, however, not 
the place to discuss these (but see notes 5 and 6). 

The specific subject of this contribution is the 
Collared Urn (accession number: Stourhead Coll. 
280 = DM205) which Cunnington described as 
follows: 


‘At the feet of this skeleton lay a drinking cup which 
was unfortunately broken to pieces by the weight of 
the encumbent earth. It was one of the best 
manufactured and has the neatest ornaments I ever 
saw upon this kind of vessel. I have succeeded in 
repairing it sufficiently to enable Mr Crocker to make 
a drawing of it, see plate... fig... 2. 


A later hand has recorded next ‘no drawing given’ 
that is, in Colt Hoare’s published account in Ancient 
Wiltshire, which includes only illustrations of seven 
of the beads and pendants from the grave. The sole 
reference to the Collared Urn in Ancient Wiltshire 


_ is terse and equally disappointing: “There was also 


a drinking cup placed at the feet of the skeleton, 
which was unfortunately broken, but afterwards 
repaired’. 


163 


No illustration of the urn by Crocker is known 
to survive. It was not illustrated by Thurnam in his 
survey of Wiltshire barrows published in 1871.The 
first illustrations known of it are in fact the 
photographs published in Cunnington and 
Goddard in 1896 (p. 74) and by Abercromby in 1906 
(fig. 55) and 1912 (vol, II, pl. LXII, no. 1). These 
confirm that no restoration or reconstruction of the 
urn was undertaken between 1896 and 1990 - the 
year in which the urn was re-conserved to prepare it 
for display in the new Bronze Age galleries at Devizes. 

There is no information about the Collared Urn 
between 1808 and 1896. However it is most unlikely 
that any reconstruction or restoration further to 
Cunnington’s work took place while the urn was at 
Stourhead as we have ne reason to believe that any 
of the Bronze Age pottery in the Stourhead 
collection was repaired or restored on the 
instructions of Colt Hoare or his successors. 
Similarly there is no reason to believe that the urn 
was repaired or restored between 1878 and 1896 
when the first photograph of it was published. In 
all probability then, the urn in 1990 was as restored 
by William Cunnington, between 1808 and his 
death in 1810. 


BEAKER SHERD AND 
COLLARED URN: AND 


SOME IMPLICATIONS 
by Humphrey Case 


Alison Hopper-Bishop’s report (see below) recog- 
nises two phases of the urn’s earlier reconstruction: 
an initial one with linseed oil putty during which 
the Beaker sherd (Fig. 1, no. 1) was incorporated, 
and a later one using a cement-like material. There 
seems no reason to believe that the later work was 
not also by William Cunnington, who elsewhere 
described using ‘a cement’ in pot restoration 
(Cunnington 1806b, 343).The first restoration may 
have been thought sufficient to enable a drawing to 
be attempted, and the second necessary to 
strengthen the pot, both for exhibition in 
Cunnington’s personal museum at the Moss House, 
Heytesbury (Annable and Simpson 1964, 5), and 
so that it could be transported temporarily to 
Etruria, Staffordshire for a replica (now in the 
Devizes Museum’s collection) to be made for Colt 
Hoare by Wedgwood (I owe this suggestion to 
Paul Robinson). 


164 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Since the putty filling had been smeared 
extensively over the surface and the interior 
obscured by the cement-like material, it is not 
surprising that the Beaker sherd had eluded 
previous researchers. 


The Beaker Sherd 


Sherd (Fig. 1, no. 1), probably from junction of 
neck and body of a Beaker (Fig. 2, nos. 1-4) 
probably of upper medium size (Case 1995c, 56). 
Breaks: Old but hackly, one recent (?broken during 
Cunnington’s restoration). Fabric: Surfaces hard; 
exterior smooth and comparatively well- 
preserved, reddish-brown (5YR/5/3); interior fairly 
smooth, reddish-grey (5YR/5/2) where 
ascertainable (?ingrained chalk or ‘cement’); core 
~ 2mm, black (5YR/2/1). Temper. Moderate grog; 
sparse - moderate rounded flint to 2mm. 
Decoration: Comb impressions; maximum 
apparent length of comb 16mm, maximum 
apparent teeth 6, sub-rectangular, width ~ 2mm. 
Motifs: Grouped chevron panel, cf. Clarke 1970, 
428, motif 371; hatched vertical strip, op. cit.,cf. 
motifs 38 1 - ill. 

The sherd is characteristic of my Group B 
Beaker pottery (Case 1993, 2001, and below, pp. 


167, 170). This Group shows the adoption by 
potters in the Late Neolithic Grooved Ware 
tradition! of the continentally inspired Bell-Beaker 
style, a style represented typically in the Group D 
Beaker Group of southern England, especially 
Wessex (Case 2001, fig. 3). Some stylistic 
contributions to Group B from late north-west 
European Corded Ware are also evident. Ranging 
chronologically from apparently within the third 
quarter of the 3rd millennium BC to within the 
second quarter of the 2nd millennium, Group B 
has been subdivided into sub-groups Ba, Bb and 
Bc (Case 2001). All three sub-groups are 
represented in Wiltshire (respectively e.g.: 
Shrewton barrow 5k, Case 1995a, fig. 2, no. 6; 
Amesbury. 51, loc. cit., fig. 4, nos. 5, 7; 
Winterbourne Monkton, loc. cit., fig. 3, nos. 3, 
4); but the affinities of the Wilsford sherd lie most 
strongly with Group Bb, which like Ba has a strong 
north British emphasis (Case 2001, maps fig. 8). 


The Collared Urn 


Collared Urn (Fig. 1, no.2), newly restored, 
comparatively small (cf. Woodward 1995, fig. 17.3, 
for comparative rim diameters; and fig. 17.1, for 
size ranges in Dorset and Hampshire), fairly 


Plate 1 A, B. Collared Urn from Wilsford 7 as reassembled in 1990, before gap-filling 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


complete but sherds missing at rim, collar, neck 
and belly (Pl. 1A and B), exceptionally symmetrical 
and well-formed (Longworth 1984, no. 1716, 
Primary Series BI; pl. 10a, before recent 
restoration). Breaks: Hackly where apparent (and 
see archive photographs: Devizes Museum). Fabric: 
Surfaces hard and well-smoothed, exterior 
moderately abraded over about half the 
circumference. Dark exterior stains possibly 
resulting from former restoration, but exterior 
pinkish grey (7.5YR/7/2) where better preserved, 
pink (~7.5YR/8/4) where abraded; interior hard 
to assess, say darker pinkish grey (7.5YR/6/2). 
Only apparent temper at x10: flint to 8mm+; some 
voids. Decoration: Grooves and so-called whipped 
cord impressions, applied with exceptional 
precision and dexterity. Grooves, round-based ~ 2 
mm deep, 2 mm wide (approaching ~ 2.5mm in 
places). Whipped cord impressions right over left 
on criss-cross zone. Impressions on collar and 
body are invasive of grooves, which thus served as 
marking-out zones. Whipped cord impressions are 
of two kinds: inside rim, max. L. 19mm, ~ 13 turns, 
W ~ 1.5mm, elongated and double-pointed 
suggesting ‘cords’ stretched between fingers and 
thumb of both hands; elsewhere, max. L. 10mm, 
11 turns max. more often 8, W. 2mm, and sub- 
triangular as though ‘cords’ possibly mounted on 
a stamp and impressed obliquely. Both kinds of 
impression recur on Collared Urns, also on 
Peterborough Ware and on Irish Funerary Vases 
and Bowls. The ‘cords’ themselves are 
exceptionally fine for Collared Urns and may have 
been very fine threads or animal hair. Motifs: Zonal 
inside rim (Longworth 1984, fig. 13, no. 1); 
herringbone zones (op. cit., cf. nos. 21, 22 on rim; 
fig. 14, no. 13 on shoulder); criss-cross or lattice 
(op. cit., fig. 13, no. 26 on rim); zonal lozenges 
(op. cit., cf. fig. 9, no. 1). 

The Urn was a masterpiece; its regularity, hard 
texture and strictly defined decorative schemes are 
exceptional. BI as defined by Longworth (1984) is 
one of the rarer forms over the whole range (op. 
cit., figs. 18, 26 and 32). Herringbone patterns 
(often merging into zig-zags) are moderately 
commonplace as recorded by Longworth (6% on 
rims and shoulders respectively and frequently on 
both, and nearly three times more numerous on 
Primary than Secondary series); but strictly defined 
_ by linear zones (as here) they are very rare (< 1%). 
Similarly, linear impressions inside the rim or inside 
the bevel are moderately commonplace (~8% of 
urns recorded by Longworth), but criss-cross or 


165 


lattice patterns on collar, shoulder or body are less 
so (~4- 5 %) like the sometimes related diamond 
patterns (with longer vertical axis, ~4%), and rare 
lozenges (as here with longer horizontal axis: 
~1.25%). Lozenges may be outlined as here, 
hatched or reserved, but on the shoulder as here 
appear unique; otherwise they are confined to the 
rim or bevel (e.g. Wilsford: Longworth 1984, pl. 
166c). 

Whipped cord decoration is also not very 
common on Collared Urns, although fairly 
widespread (op. cit., map fig. 43). It was considered 
an early trait by Longworth (op. cit.) and Burgess 
(1986, 345) who placed the Wilsford urn in their 
Primary and Middle Series respectively. These 
typological assessments would be unaffected by the 
recent reconstruction of the urn, but it must be 
recognised that if considered as chronological 
statements they are not fully supported by 
apparently associated radiocarbon dates 
(Longworth 1984, 140; and results since), which 
so far do little more than give Collared Urns an 
approximate chronological span from towards the 
end of the 3rd millennium BC to the mid 2nd 
millennium or somewhat after (as shown in 
Needham 1996, 124, fig. 2). 

Longworth and Burgess were partly influenced 
by seeing whipped cord decoration on Collared 
Urns (along with other stylistic features) as being 
in direct descent from late Neolithic Peterborough 
Ware, especially in its Fengate style. However recent 
radiocarbon dates for that style in the late 4th 
millennium BC or around the turn of the 4th and 
the 3rd (Gibson and Kinnes 1997; Cleal in Allen 
and Green 1998) suggest a hiatus between the two 
traditions, even if one may allow for the survival of 
Peterborough Ware to the mid 3rd. Whipped cord 
decoration on Collared Urns is probably best seen 
as a parallel development with (or subsequent to) 
its frequent and widespread use on Irish Vase and 
Bowl pottery (O Riordain and Waddell 1999, 
passim), which began to replace Beaker pottery in 
Ireland in a major way during the fourth quarter of 
the 3rd millennium BC (Case 1995b, 23). Zonal 
herringbone, criss-cross and zonal internal rim 
motifs were also frequently used by the Irish potters. 
Whipped cord decoration also occurs on fourth 
quarter north British Food Vessels (e.g. Haughton 
and Powlesland 1999, 45, fig. 24, West Heslerton 
grave BA203, barrow 2BA174; 55, fig. 31, West 
Heslerton grave 2BA544. I am grateful to Terry 
Manby for these references with radiocarbon 
results). 


166 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Tea Ra Masia stay, 
peparterovere 


ari 
Sa cect a eee 


Fig. 2. Beakers (after Clarke 1970): 1, Lesmurdie, Banff.; 2, Premnay, Aberdeens; 
3, Lanark Moor, Lanark; 4, Garton Slack 163, E. Yorks. Nos. 1-4 at 1:3 CMS 


S| AAl [| x ore 
ABERDEENS tots 

OTHER. NORTH- 

-fAST SCOTLAND 


ALL SCOTLAND 


NORTHERN ENGLAND 
MIDLAND ENGLAND 


EAST ANGLIA 
SOUTHERN ENGLAND 


ABERDEENS 


OTHER. NORTH ~ 
-EAST SCOTLAND 


ALL SCOTLAND 
NORTHERN ENGLAND 
MIDLAND ENGLAND 


EAST ANGLIA 
SOUTHERN ENGLAND 


WALES 


Table 1. Regional frequencies of associated Beaker decorative motifs: zonal lozenge, zonal herringbone, grouped 
chevron panel and zonal zig-zag. Other frequencies recorded: criss-cross, other panel (including with zigzags), zonal 
grouped chevrons, ermine, and fringe motifs. From sample of 91 Beakers derived from total sample of 238 recorded 
with zonal lozenge, panel with zig-zag, herringbone, and other zig-zag motifs, mostly from Clarke 1970. Other north- 

east Scotland refers to Banff., Moray, Kincardine and Nairn. 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


The Prehistoric Relationship 
between Beaker Sherd and 
Collared Urn 


Was the relationship non-random? First of all, the 
sherd’s hackly breaks and comparatively 
unweathered preservation are evidence that it was 
a grave find, and make it unlikely that it was in 
topsoil when excavated by Cunnington, and then 
misguidedly assigned by him to the grave filling. 
Next, the possibility cannot altogether be excluded 
that the sherd came from a grave in another barrow 
which Cunnington confused with Wilsford 7; but 
there is no positive evidence for that. The balance 
of evidence thus favours a non-random association 
of sherd and Urn: either the sherd came from the 
filling of an earlier culturally related deeper grave 
in Wilsford 7 which Cunnington failed to recognise; 
or marginally more likely it was deposited in 
prehistoric times in deliberate association with the 
sherds of the Urn - possibly to assert the real 
continuity of ancestral traditions (a practice 
discussed by Woodward in Hughes 2000, 58 - 60). 
And the Urn’s condition (Pl. 1A and B) suggests 
that it had not been broken ‘by the weight of the 
encumbent earth’ (as Cunnington suggested: p. 
163), but deposited in the grave in a fragmentary 
state like at least some Beakers (Case in press, a); 
and burial of the vessel towards the feet is a fairly 
general Beaker tendency in southern Britain. 

The appearance of the sherd gives no indication 
that it had earlier been built into the fabric of the 
Urn and refired with it (as in instances suggested in 
Allen and Hopkins 2000, 310, or Brown 1995, 127). 


Were Urn and Sherd in the Same 
Tradition? 


Whether or not the Beaker had been broken shortly 
before the sherd was deposited, the presence of the 
sherd is sufficient evidence that the potter of the 
Urn was familiar with Beaker decorative traditions. 
Urn and sherd do show some differences, somewhat 
in fabric and emphatically in some respects in 
decoration: for example, whipped cord impressions 
are very rare on British Beaker pottery (although 
so-called barbed wire impressions on Beaker Group 
E are related: Case 2001, 366); and corded internal 
_ rim impressions although prevalent on Collared 
Urns are quite restricted on Beakers (normally to 
Groups C and D). But there are some significant 


167 


similarities. Zonal motifs are obviously common to 
both; and the precise marking out of the zones is 
otherwise extremely uncommon on Collared Urns, 
while most characteristic of Beaker pottery. 

Decorative features which the Urn shares with 
Beaker pottery in general are the criss-cross, the 
zonal lozenge and zonal herringbone motifs. The 
criss-cross is not an especially diagnostic motif, 
being widespread on Beaker pottery (e.g. Fig. 2, 
nos. 1, 3) and well-represented on Collared Urns. 
The zonal lozenge however is rare on Collared Urns 
but fairly widespread on Beaker pottery and 
recurrent in north Britain (e.g. Fig. 2, nos. 2, 4)’. 
The zonal herringbone is also quite widespread on 
both classes of pottery, but especially strongly 
represented on Beaker pottery in north Britain (e.g. 
Fig. 2, nos. 1, 2, 3), where together with the criss- 
cross and zonal lozenge it forms part of a north 
British style (Table 1), especially characteristic of 
northeast Scotland, particularly Aberdeens. Other 
components of this style are grouped chevron panels 
(e.g. Fig. 2, no. 1) as on the Wilsford 7 Beaker sherd, 
zonal grouped chevrons (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 3), zonal 
zigzags (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 2), other panel motifs 
(including combinations with zigzags, e.g. Fig. 2, 
nos. 1, 3, 4), and ermine (e.g. Fig. 2, no. 2) and 
fringe motifs. Zonal grooves as on the Wilsford Urn 
are also a northern Beaker feature. 

Some 60% of the Beakers involved in this north 
British style belong to Group Bb (Table 2), the type 
to which the Wilsford 7 Beaker is likely to have 
belonged. 


BEAKER GROUPS 


D E Ba Bb Bc total 
1 1 28 55 6 91 
13 6 62 143 14 238 


Table 2. Frequencies by Beaker Group (after Case 2001) 
of samples of 91 and 238 Beakers recorded in Table 1. 


The lozenge motif of the Wilsford sherd unlike 
that of the urn is set vertically, not zonally. Vertical 
strip decoration, fairly uncommon on Beaker 
pottery, is also associated with the north British 
style in question (e.g. Fig 2., nos. 3, 4) although 
more characteristic of northern England and East 
Anglia (Clarke 1970, fig. 1051, Toddenham, 
Norfolk, is a parallel). 

The north British style as shown in Table 1 is 
also strongly represented in Irish Group A Beaker 
pottery’ and the grouped chevron panel motif as 
on the Wilsford 7 sherd is notably seen at 


168 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


A Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads Group 
(@) 


Lesser \ \ 
Cursus \\ 
\ 


° 
ie) 


NORMANTON GORSE 


O 54 
Ring -barrow eg 
Oo 


[e) 


Wilsford 52 Fargo/ a0 ot 
% ® 300 Cursus Group ~ oo 
fe} 


Isford 54 
ge 2 Amesbury 15 


Wilsford Ae O4 


fe) PR, 
NORMANTON ie) 
DOWN 
GROUP @ STONEHENGE 


fe) 
Amesbur 
09 


0% © 
00 =O New King Barrows © 


o Barrow 
® Barrow referred to in text 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 169 


®@ Winterbourne Monkton \ 


; 
=) Windmill Hille . 2 R Kennet 
S Bishops Cannings él, ~ Preshute fa ae 
) ars dway °. Gh West Overton 66 \ 
r 8 ® Snes 
e Beckhampton ( 
eS ee ) 
= avs 
& 
: 
a VA ESS SS) aS i 
; / 
) 
y >) 
U af Pah 
¢ - } Figheldean 26~ 
is P Shrewiton ¢g Oona ene Copse \ 
Cc 
; e e ce AZ e° Amesbury 71 N 
y Norton Upton Lovell ® / Butterfield 
‘ Bavant © . Down ) 
(7 2e s Wils ford 
a Wy lye 58 : 
? oO ; 1S 
\_ @ Mere 6a kms 


Knipton 


® Great 
Lockington isle? 


Barnack Little 
Cressingham 1 


Abingdon 
lechlade__| @ Radley 6 
~@ “‘e 


ec teees on Thames 


i UY a oS 


LMU Faversham 


Winterbourne 
St.Martin 31 


Hammeldon ® Weymouth ae 


Hengistbury Head 3 


Mount Pleasant 


Fig. 3. A, The Normanton Gorse/Normanton Down barrow group and its relationship to Stonehenge and other 
adjacent barrow groups (after RCHME 1979). B and C, maps of comparanda elsewhere in Wiltshire and southern 
Britain and in midland England and East Anglia. 


170 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Newgrange (Case 1993, fig. 6, no. 4), Knowth B 
(Case 1995b, Fig. 12, no. 4), Largantea (loc. cit., 
fig. 13, no. 6) and Knockadoon D (Clarke 1970, 
fig. 202) and further afield in central Europe (e.g. 
Case 1995b, fig. 9, no. 4). These and the East 
Anglian parallels anticipate the widespread 
connections represented in Wessex Series graves 
such as Wilsford 7. 

However Table 1 shows that the impact of this 
north British Beaker style on southern England was 
generally slight. In the Stonehenge and Avebury 
regions, Ba Beakers showing some of these northern 
features were possibly all relatively early (e.g. 
Shrewton 5k, Case 1995a, fig. 2, no. 6; 
Beckhampton, Joc. cit., fig. 4, no. 1), but published 
sherd references are very few (e.g. W 55, Lesser 
Cursus tertiary filling, Raymond in Richards 1990, 
fig. 53, P 230 and possibly P 234; and, more 
dubiously, northwest of Greater Cursus, Cleal and 
Raymond in Joc. cit., Fig. 21, P 283 and 284; 
possibly also Butterfield Down, Amesbury, Cleal 
in Rawlings and Fitzpatrick 1966, fig. 15, no. 1; 
also Windmill Hill, Zienkiewicz and Hamilton in 
Whittle et al. 1999, table 171, passim). 

The Beaker represented by the sherd in Wilsford 
7 would thus have been a northern style rarity. Since 
the Collared Urn with which it was closely 
associated shared a common tradition, then both 
potters may have been northerners in origin or had 
close ties with the north. The same may have been 
true of the person with whom sherd and Urn were 
buried* and whose ‘head was placed towards the 
west’ (Hoare 1812, 202) or ‘nearly west’ (p. 162 
above). The orientation may have been intentionally 
in the general direction of Wilsford 5; but it is worth 
noting that west - east orientations are a recurrent 
continental Corded Ware trait and very strongly 
associated with north British Ba and Bb Beaker 
Groups and with the motif complex shown in Table 
1 (Clarke 1970, 455-6 and passim; Tuckwell 1975 
for prevalence in east Yorkshire; Shepherd 1984, 12 
for concentration in the Aberdeen region; and A.N. 
Shepherd in Greig 1989 for northeast Scotland 
generally, noting that western orientations 
characterised female burials and eastern male - as 
with continental Corded Ware). Also, the double- 
axe pendant and one of the ribbed beads reported 
from Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, nos. 15 and e.g. 14; Annable 
and Simpson 1964, nos. 148, 147, 154) have been 
identified as jet (Pollard er al. 1981, 154, table 5) 
which contributes to suggesting northern 
connections (but cf. Watts et al. 1997). Similar 
connections were suggested by comparisons 


between the jet plate from Law Hill, Angus 
(Shepherd 1985, 208-9) and the gold belt-hook in 
Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 176; 
Hoare 1812, 204 and pl. X XVII, no. 1); cf. also the 
maceheads from Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 175; Hoare 1812, 204 and pl. XXVII, 
no. 3) and Towthorpe C39, E. Yorks. (Mortimer 
1905, 5-6). 


A CORE AND A SUB- 
CORE GROUP OF 
WESSEX SERIES BURIALS 


Wilsford 7 belongs to a Core group of five southern 
English Early Bronze Age barrow burials with 
exceptional gold and amber grave goods within a 
much larger, more widespread and sometimes 
loosely defined Wessex Series (a term now 
generally replacing ‘Wessex Culture’ as coined by 
Piggott: 1938). This group comprises: Wilsford 7 
and 8 in the Normanton Gorse/Normanton Down 
barrow group overlooking Stonehenge (Fig. 3A; 
respectively Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 147- 
158, 179 - 192 and references); likewise in the 
Stonehenge region, Upton Lovell 2e (the co-called 
Golden Barrow), about 18km west (Fig. 3B) in 
the valley of the Wyle, tributary of the Wiltshire 
Avon (op. cit., nos. 226-8, 231-3). Further afield 
are Preshute la (the so-called Manton Barrow), 
in the Avebury region (Fig. 3B), somewhat under 
30km north-northeast from Wilsford 7 
(Cunnington 1907; Annable and Simpson 1964, 
nos. 195-210); and Hengistbury Head 3, Hants., 
about 50km south on the Channel coast (Fig. 3C) 
near the mouth of the Wiltshire/Hampshire Avon 
(Bushe Fox 1915). 

Related to this Core group is a Sub-group of 
three further barrow burials: Little Cressingham 1, 
Norfolk (Fig. 3C), about 35km southeast of the 
Wash (Gerloff 1975, 75, pl. 46; Lawson 1980, 6-8), 
with grave goods related to some of those 
uncertainly associated at Winterborne St. Martin 
31, Dorset (the Clandon Barrow), about 10km from 
the Channel coast (Fig. 3C) and 50km east of 
Hengistbury Head (Grinsell 1959, 152; Gerloff 
1975, 74, pl. 46); also related is Wilsford 5 (the Bush 
Barrow) adjoining Wilsford 7 on Normanton Down, 
with exceptional gold objects but no amber (Fig. 
3A; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos.168-178; 
Hoare 1812, 202-5 and pls. XXVI, XXVII). 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


Armorican 
British B Knife 


WINTERBOURNE 
ST. MARTIN 31 


Fig. 4. Association diagram of Core and Sub-Groups of 
Wessex Series burials 


Additionally, Gerloff (1975, 258-260, ‘female 
burials’) lists seven other gold/amber associations: 
four from Wilts, Dorset and Hants.; two from East 
Anglia, including Great Bircham, Norfolk; one from 
Orkney; also the pommel from Hammeldon, Devon 
(Gerloff 1975, no. 194). 

The coherence of the Core and Sub-group is 
shown in their interlocking series of associations 
(Fig. 4) and in the generally exceptionally fine 
craftsmanship these display, such as the Urn and 
Grape Cup (Fig.1) from Wilsford 7 - and especially 
the gold objects of the so-called Wessex Linear Style, 
such as the belt-hook and lozenge-shaped plates in 
Wilsford 5 (Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 176, 
168, 177; Hoare 1812, 204 and pls XXVI, XXVII). 
Taylor (1980, pl. 25; 1999, 111-2 and references) 
has argued that a highly inventive local school of 
craftsmanship was involved in producing these gold, 
amber, jet and shale objects, some of the pieces 
considered to be by the same hand - although 
interestingly the halberd-pendants from Wilsford 8 
and Preshute la (Fig. 6, nos. 1, 8; Annable and 
Simpson 1964, nos. 180, 200) appear to stand apart 
(Coles and Taylor 1971, 12). A number of sources 
for the gold seem indicated (Taylor 1999, 111-2) - 
some of it possibly recycled (from formerly Beaker- 
associated objects?). The gold work like that in 
Beaker association (e.g. Case 1977) shows simple 
linear and sometimes dotted patterns, but the 
execution of the best pieces as from Wilsford 5 is 
very different (loc. cit., 23 - 24; Needham 2000a, 
- 30, 31). Some tendency for miniaturisation is 
apparent in the craftsmanship: as in the Fabergé- 
like halberd-pendants, the double-axe jet bead from 
Wilsford 7 and the pendant from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 


WILSFORD 8 
pendant 


WILSFORD 7 


6, no. 7; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 192) and 
in the comparatively small Collared Urn from 
Wilsford 7, and possibly in the accessory pots 
including Grape and Perforated-Wall cups from 
Wilsford 7 and 8, Upton Lovell 2e, Preshute la 
and Hengistbury Head 3 (e.g. Figs. 1 and 5), 
although their small size may have been for 
portability (note 11, below). 

All the burials or assemblages in the Core and 
Sub-groups were reported as primary, except for 
those at Upton Lovell 2e (Hoare 1812, 98-100) and 
Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Grinsell 1959, 152). 
Burials at Wilsford 8, Upton Lovell 2e and 
Hengistbury Head 3 were by cremation; where 
ascertainable the remainder were inhumed. Wilsford 
5 was reported as male (Hoare 1812, 203) and the 
same may have been true of Little Cressingham 1 
(Barton 1852) and the anomalous Winterborne St. 
Martin 31.’The remainder are generally assumed 
to be female (e.g. Gerloff 1975, 258-260); Preshute 
la was so reported (Cunnington 1907/8, 19-20), 
like the recently excavated woman’s inhumation 
burial at Shrewton 5j, about 15km northeast of 
Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 3B) with grave goods 
including amber disc- and wooden pestle-beads 
(Green and Rollo-Smith 1984, 273-5, 309-310). 
Pestle-beads occur also at Little Cressingham 1 
(Gerloff 1975, pl. 46F, nos. 8 and 9) and probably 
at Wilsford 8 (Fig. 6, nos, 4-6; Annable and Simpson 
1964, nos. 183, 184, 187; not specifically described 
in Hoare 1812, 202, but pl. XXV, no. 6 appears to 
show Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 184). At 
Little Cressingham and Shrewton pestle-beads were 
apparently in male and female association 
respectively; and a young adult male was possibly 


2; THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


associated with quite numerous jet and amber beads 
nearby (Fig. 3A) at Amesbury 39 (Annable and 
Simpson 1964, nos. 467-472; Denton in Ashbee 
1981, 29). Thus, assumptions that burials with 
ornaments only are necessarily female may be 
incorrect; similarly, an observation that wealth was 
more commonly displayed with females than males 
(Harding 2000, 92) needs some qualification. 
Moreover, cross - gender displays have not been 
seriously considered by British prehistorians (but 
cf. Taylor 1999, 112 on Wilsford 8; and Wierman 
1998 for central European Corded Ware practices). 

Consensus opinion is that the Core and Sub- 
group discussed here were early in the Wessex 
Series: Wessex I (following ApSimon 1957), dating 
to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. 
However, radiocarbon results from Wessex Series 
burials are few (recent summary in Garwood 1999, 
table 9.4; also Gerloff 1993, 95-6). Almost all are 
peripheral to the Core and Sub-group series; and 
in my view it is not feasible from these results to 
date Wessex Series trends closer than with reference 
to quarter-millennium spans. Ranges expressed in 
half-centuries or single centuries would be 
unrealistic. This should be borne in mind in raising 
two questions prompted by the Beaker sherd from 
Wilsford 7: Is there other evidence of Beaker 
contributions to the Wessex Series? Do other Wessex 
Series burials show a mixture of archaic traditions 
and apparently more recent ones? 

In what follows, answers to these questions are 
sought through analysing some components of the 
Core and Sub-core groups, especially objects of 
gold, amber, jet and pottery (as associated for 
example at Wilsford 7)° and of copper and bronze 
(as at Wilsford 5), in relation to comparanda at 
home and abroad. This search contributes to a 
picture of the significance, both in the Stonehenge 
landscape and further afield, of the Normanton 
Gorse/ Normanton Down barrow group (Fig. 3A) 
to which Wilford 7 belongs. 

As a prelude, note that an adequate number of 
Beaker-associated radiocarbon results, especially 
relating Group B Beakers in south and north Britain 
to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium (Case 
1983, fig. 1), suggests that these are promising 
questions; and that both gold and amber recur in 
Bell-Beaker association in continental western 
Europe (e.g. respectively, Joussaume 1981, 504; du 
Gardin 1998), although amber is not very frequent. 
And gold and amber are present together in Beaker 
association in north Britain (Burial 1, Driffield C38, 
Yorks., Ba Group, Kinnes 1985, 19-22; Culduthel 


Mains, Inverness, Bb Group, Clarke er al. 1985, 
94, pl. 4.16). 


BEAKER CONTRIBUTIONS 
TO THE CORE AND SUB- 
CORE GROUPS 


The gold foil (?) plaque (or armlet?) from Upton 
Lovell 2e (Fig. 5, no. 1, after Crocker watercolour; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 232; Hoare 1812, 
99 and pl. X) 

Clarke (1970, 230-1) indicated central 
European parallels, but a derivation nearer at hand 
is more convincing. This object is a larger and more 
elaborate version of the Beaker-related Irish gold 
plaques of Belleville type (Case 1977, fig. 4, nos. 1- 
4, 27; metal compositions, Taylor 1999, 113-4), 
themselves related to the similarly associated French 
appliques rectangulaires of mainly Atlantic 
distribution (Eluere 1982, fig. 35; Joussaume 1981, 
fig. 231, nos. 10-15). 

The elaboration consists in linear-based motifs 
recurrent throughout the Beaker decorative range 
(as Clarke noted: 1970, 230-1): the ubiquitous criss- 
cross hatching; and the rarer positive or reserved 
wedge-ended or indented rectangles sometimes 
formed from or combined with parallelograms (op. 
cit., 428, cf. motif 351i). Radiocarbon dating 
suggests that these rarer motifs were current on 
Beaker pottery from the fourth quarter of the 3rd 
millennium BC into the first quarter of the 2nd, as 
in Group B association in north Britain (associated 
with the characteristic north British motifs 
discussed above pp. 166, 167; e.g. Keabog cist 1, 
Kincardine and Deeside: Shepherd and 
Brucel987)’, and nearby in Wiltshire in Bb 
association at Amesbury 51 in the Fargo/Cursus 
barrow group (Fig. 5, no. 7; burial 1: Ashbee 1975/ 
6, fig. 11). And positive and reserved patterns in 
Group D context at grave 4660, Barrow Hills, 
Oxon. (Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 4.23, P 27) 
appear related. Clarke noted motifs somewhat 
similar to 351i on the Knipton, Leicestershire, 
bronze bracelet in Bb association (1970, fig. 955) 
and less convincingly on another bracelet in burial 
association at Amesbury barrow 41 (Fig. 3A; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, 42, no. 117).This type 
3511 motif, which recalls textile and in some cases 
string patterns (‘cat’s cradles’), is matched by the 
borings of the spacer-plates of the amber necklace 
from Upton Lovell 2e (e.g. Fig. 5, nos. 5 and 6). 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


173 


> 
a 
ss 
% 


Be 
Oh 
SX 


“8, 


4: 
% 
1% 
0 
‘s 
Sy 
q 


o 
“a 


ANNAN 
MX POO 
5 
% 

x 
we 


% 
? 

ot, 
«s 


‘i 
Re 
WX 


[Rs 
i 
Ks 
! 
( 
AA 
7 


eCO PO COCCEE OSES SE 
Cosnernnecne® 
Lay 
COS cc 
for Ere ee 6 rec cworre cece Oe eee 
: RESIS re ornare eed 
7 SESE ec as fe 
AE fe ff 
¢. ect 


pao 
z3530 
< ¢ bode 
EESES EEge 
fe co 


F Steers =f 
eg & 


‘SR EEN eraa 
~ cc 
REESE ETE 


c 


ES 
ecee 


5, 


IMTNI9 


ho’ 


CO ceed] 
SEE SERS eRRO SE £ BEER 


CO mm Rne er fet et ls] 


> 5 9 
9 
% aD 


COmeerc]e 


Ceceece 
Eee, B 


Cn 
Iecccccccnoet cctcer oec]eckeccey 
ecoeccecrecececcecec]e 


ecececce rere ce cee 
ccccer, 
© ee ceecete ce ccc ccceceececg 


TET ce CCKE CR CELE 
(ceveceCewecced 


e 
° 
° 
© 
° 


Fig. 5. Grape Cup and ornaments from Upton Lovell 2e, nos. 1-6; Beaker from Amesbury 51, no. 7; Pendant and 
Perforated-wall Cup from Wilsford 8, nos. 8 and 9; Conical Cup from Preshute 1a, no. 10. Nos. 1-10, all at 1:2 


174 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


The amber spacer-plate necklace from Upton 
Lovell 2e (e.g. spacer-plates, Fig. 5, nos. 5 and 6; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 227; described in 
Hoare 1812, 99) 


Irish gold lunulae, north British spacer-plate 
necklaces of jet, shale or similar substances, and 
amber spacer-plate necklaces share a continuous 
more or less exclusive geographical distribution 
(Harding 1993, fig. 2), and appear to show an artistic 
development from the lunulae of the fourth quarter 
of the 3rd millennium BC with characteristically 
Beaker-derived decoration (Taylor 1970; Case 
1995b) to the amber necklaces as here of the turn of 
the 3rd and 2nd millennia and the first quarter of 
the 2nd. Motif 3511 however is rare on Irish lunulae 
(Taylor 1970, pls. XIII, XIV, motif no. 32), absent 
as a boring pattern on the northern necklaces 
(information Alison Sheridan) and confined to the 
southern amber ones. Later again and further afield, 
these provided models for a few amber spacer-plates 
with similar borings in central European Tumulus 
Culture associations of the mid 2nd millennium and 
in two of the four in recorded Aegean contexts 
(Gerloff 1975, pl. 63, triangular symbol). 


Gold-covered shale(?) conical V-buttons or 
pendants from Upton Lovell 2e and Wilsford 8 
(Fig. 5, nos. 2, 8; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 
233, 181; Hoare 1812, 99 and pl. X, 201 and pl. 
XXV, no. 1); and related gold conical covers from 
Hengistbury Head 3 (Bushe Fox 1915; Clarke et 
al. 1985, pl. 4.55) 


These have a strong Beaker ancestry. V-buttons in 
jet, shale or amber are a well-known Beaker 
association (Shepherd 1985). Similarly, conical or 
sub-conical rivet caps of gold foil or sheet embellish 
stone wristguards in Group D association at 
Barnack, Cambs.: (burial 28; Kinnes 1985, A7; 
3770435 BP, BM-2956), and in Ba and Bb 
associations at Driffield, Yorks., and Culduthel 
Mains, Inverness (p. 172). All these Beaker 
comparanda may date from the fourth quarter of 
the 3rd millennium® like the conical foil or sheet 
copper or bronze caps from the Migdale hoard, 
Sutherland (Piggott and Stewart 1958, GB26; 
365575 BP, OxA-4659)°. Comparanda from 
further afield are copper or bronze rivet-caps on 
typologically late Irish bronze halberds (Harbison 
1960a, 46), and matched in the great central 
European Unetician hoards (von Brunn 1959, taf. 
17, no. 4b; 20, no. 1c), some components of which 


may date likewise from the fourth quarter of the 
3rd millennium BC. 


Some other gold objects in the Wessex Linear 
Style 


The conical gold macehead mountings from 
Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Shepherd in Clarke et 
al. 1985, pl. 5.49) are clearly related to the covers 
noted above, likewise the so-called boxes from 
Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 5, no. 3; Annable and 
Simpson 1964, no. 231; Hoare 1812, 99 and pl. X; 
probably better considered as mounts for wands or 
staffs as Cunnington first believed, 1806a, 128-9, 
pl. VII. I owe this suggestion to Paul Robinson). 
But the Beaker affiliation of other objects in the 
same style seems more remote. Such are the twin 
covers for ovoid and squat fusiform beads (lignite?) 
from Wilsford 7 (Fig.6, nos. 12, 13; Annable and 
Simpson 1964, nos. 156, 157; cf. Hoare 1812, pl. 
XXV, nos. 7, 8) - although they may be early 
enough, since covers possibly for a similar fusiform 
bead from barrow 2, Barrow Hills Field, Radley, 
Oxon. (Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 
5.3), are datable by extrapolation to the turn of the 
3rd and 2nd millennia (although a date early in the 
first quarter of the 2nd millennium is preferred by 
Garwood: 1989, 289). Likewise in the same 
tradition of gold foil decorative embellishment 
belong the gold bound (non-jet) fusiform bead from 
Preshute 1a (Fig. 6, no. 10; Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 196) and the similar amber discs from 
the same grave group (Fig. 6, no. 9; op. cit. no. 195) 
and from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 6, nos. 2, 3; op. cit., nos. 
188, 189; Hoare 1812, no. 201 and pl. XXV, no. 
3). These like the amber spacer-plates from Upton 
Lovell 2e have attracted comparisons from further 
afield and in later contexts. The bead from 
Preshute la and the squat fusiform bead from 
Wilsford 7 (Fig, 6, no. 13) have been compared to 
a gold mounted amber bead or pendant from 
Zurich-Mozartstrasse, Lake Zurich, reported from 
a context dated dendrochronologically to 1607- 
1503 BC (Barfield 1991; Gerloff 1996, 13), 
although unfortunately unstratified. The 
comparison however seems quite apt, since the 
object is in the same general tradition as the 
Wiltshire ones, although it is squatter and about 
twice the size and its gold embellishment is not 
circumferential but axial. Finally, comparisons of 
the amber discs to one in somewhat later Late 
Minoan context are well known (e.g. Gerloff 1975, 
214 -15). 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


TT: 


ll 


IMM 


rr! 


lil 


‘tl 


8 


KID 
| 

Gp GD 
11 


Fig. 6. Ornaments: Wilsford 8, nos. 1 - 7; Preshute la, nos. 8 - 11; Wilsford 7, nos. 12-18; Wilsford 16 east, nos. 19, 
20. Nos. 1-20, all at 2:3 


Other Beaker traditions 


The gold-embellished bronze or copper pendant 
from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 6, no. 7, newly drawn; Annable 
and Simpson 1964, no. 192; Clarke er al. 1985, pl. 
4.32) has also attracted widespread comparisons. 
Hoare described it correctly as ‘horn-like’ (1812, 
201 and pl. XXV, no. 2), but it has been interpreted 
as a representing a central European Early Bronze 
Age ingot torc (e.g. Ashbee 1960, 146), such as 
recurring in the central European hoards (von 
Brunn 1959, e.g. taf. 13) or present probably earlier 
in the Singen cemetery, Wurttemberg (Krause 1988, 
Ab. 42a). But it seems unlikely that its damaged 


terminals were originally looped outwards as on the 
ingot torcs, and its double curvature is quite 
inconsistent. Alternatively, Aegean comparisons 
seem highly questionable (Branigan 1976, 97; cf. 
Harding 1984, 113-14). 

I regard it as one more example of local 
inventiveness and miniaturisation: in representing 
the horns of domesticated longhorn cattle or of an 
aurochs - symbols of riches, abundance and power 
(cf. apparent cattle cult associated with Beaker 
burials: in Group D association at Bishops 
Cannings 81, near Avebury (Robertson Mackay 
1980); and in Bb association at Irthlingborough 1, 
Northants. (Davis and Payne 1993). 


176 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 7. Beaker, copper knife, stone wristguard and flint arrowhead from Roundway 8, nos. 1-4; copper knives from 
Shrewton 5k and Lockington, Leics., nos. 5, 6; copper knife, gold-ornamented wooden pommel, bronze midrib knife 
and low-flanged axe from Wilsford 5, nos. 7-10; bronze flat axe from Clontarf, Co. Dublin, no. 11. No. 6 after 
Hughes 2000. Nos. 1-11, all at 1:3 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


The jet double-axe bead or pendant from Wilsford 
7 (Fig. 6, no. 15; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 
148; Hoare 1812, 202 and pl. XXV, no. 12; Pollard 
et al. 1981, P54) is another example of native 
inventiveness and a tendency towards 
minaturisation’®. One need not look further for 
models than the stone battleaxes of Roe’s 
Intermediate or Variant Forms, themselves 
developments from a basic Beaker- associated type 
(Roe 1966). In Food Vessel and Collared Urn 
associations nationally, Intermediate battleaxes are 
quite frequent in Wiltshire: for example at Wilsford 
58 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 216) and very 
doubtfully associated with a Grape Cup at Windmill 
Hill, Avebury (op. cit., nos. 234, 235). 


Grape Cups as at Wilsford 7, Preshute 1aand Upton 
Lovell 2e (Fig, 1; Fig. 5, no. 4; Annable and Simpson 
1964, nos. 155, 209, 228; Hoare 1812, 202, 99 and 
pl. XD are highly localised (Gerloff 1975, 208) and 
seem likely to be another product of inventive local 
craftsmanship'!. A roughened surface was much 
favoured by potters in the British Group B Beaker 
tradition, as for example locally at Crescent Copse, 
Shrewton (Cleal in Heaton and Cleal 2000, fig. 3, 
P5). Rows of knobs or bosses appear on Group D 
Beaker pottery at Stonehenge (Cleal in Cleal et al. 
1995, 17, fig. 195, P17) and Lechlade, Glos. (Darvill 
in Allen et al. 1982, fig. 15, no. 29), and also on 
Group A pottery at Monknewton, Co. Meath 
(Sweetman 1976, figs. 13, 15). The contexts of the 
knobbed cups at El Mar, Brittany and Mont Ube, 
Jersey (Hawkes 1939, 86, 219; Gerlofff 1975, 226) 
are uncertain, but both may have been 
contemporary with the Beaker period. 


Pertorated-wall cups as at Wilsford 8 (Fig. 5, no. 9; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 179; Hoare 1812, 
201 and pl. XXV) and Hengistbury Head 3 
(Gardiner 1987, fig. III, 40, P III) may be another 
local invention, but resemblances of some kind are 
more widespread. Conical cups as at Preshute la 
(Fig. 5, no. 10; Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 
199) occur however occasionally in Beaker 
associations (some references to comparable 
undecorated cups in Case 1995a, 13). 


Finally, bell-barrows as at Wilsford 8 have 
sometimes been claimed as Wessex Series 
innovations (Clarke et al. 1985, 119 for references) 
but they had antecedents already in the Beaker 
period (Amesbury 71, phase II, Christie 1967, 339- 
343, with Beaker sherd, Smith in loc. cit., 350, no. 


WT. 


2; Amesbury 51, phases i and 11, Ashbee 1975/6, 
27). Similarly, ring-barrows (e.g. West Overton 6b, 
burial phase, Smith and Simpson 1966; Lambourn 
17, Berks., with its earthwork surviving apparently 
virtually unaltered into recent times, Case 1956/7, 
pl. I) can be seen as forerunners of disc-, saucer- 
and pond-barrows. 


The Armorico-British type A copper knife from 
Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 7; Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 169; Hoare 1812, 203-4) 


Gerloff listed thirteen of this type (1975, nos. 108- 
121), with flat blade, vestigial tang and multiple 
rivets, ranging from the Channel coast to Orkney, 
with more than half from Wilts., Hants., and Dorset. 
‘Two of the five analysed examples are tin-bronzes, 
that from Wilsford 5 copper-arsenical alloy, and 
those from Weymouth 8 and Winterbourne Stoke 
5 are arsenical tin-bronzes (op. cit. 267, Appendix 
10). Gerloff (e.g. 1975) and other researchers 
describe these blades as daggers; but they are 
termed here knives, since their flat thin forms would 
make them untrustworthy stabbing weapons, but 
well-adapted for cutting like the pan-European 
Beaker-associated West European type knives (e.g. 
Fig. 7, no. 2) from which they were derived. 

An example related to the Wilsford 5 knife was 
indeed recently found associated with Group B 
Beaker pottery at Lockington, Leicestershire 
(Hughes 2000; Needham in op. cit., 26-7; Woodward 
in op. cit., 52-54). This knife (Fig. 7, no. 6) is also of 
arsenical copper (Hook and Meeks in op. cit., 28). 
Both knives are regarded as likely imports of Breton 
types termed Quimperlé and Rumedon respectively 
(Needham in op. cit., 40; Needham 2000b, 183, fig. 
20, no. 113). These Breton types (about 15 and 40 
examples respectively) are regarded as primeval to a 
series of about 200 knives and daggers recorded from 
the Breton Barrow Graves (Needham 2000b, 195- 
207). With their vestigial tangs and thin blades, they 
are essentially developments from the characteristic 
Bell-Beaker-associated tanged West European knife 
towards massive size — some being exuberantly de- 
scribed as swords. These developments centred on 
the Atlantic fringe (Needham in Hughes 2000, 40- 
2), earlier itself containing the cradle of the Bell- 
Beaker (Case 1993, 248; 1995b, 17-20, and in press, 
b; also Salanova 2000, 35-54, 185-8, 191-2 for the 
importance of Brittany). Massive tanged knives 
were also deployed in Ciempozuelos Beaker 
contexts in the Spanish Meseta (Garrido-Pena 
2000, figs. 91, 92, pl. 99). 


178 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


The rivet attachment of the Barrow Grave 
blades could be seen as a factor of increasing size; 
and it was an early innovation in Beaker contexts 
in southwest Europe (possibly around the mid 3rd 
millennium at Forcalquier-La Fare, Alpes-de- 
Haute-Provence: Lemercier 1997/8, 35; and in an 
earlier Chalcolithic tradition). Rivet reinforcement 
was early in Britain too as seen in the knife from 
Shrewton 5k (Fig. 7, no. 5; Case 1995a, fig. 2, no.7; 
3940+40 BP, BM-3017). The Shrewton knife also 
serves to illustrate that copper arsenical alloys were 
an early Beaker-associated practice (analysis: 
Gerloff 1975, 266) and its disproportionately large 
tang suggests that the knife may have been whetted 
down from a longer blade. 

Another but indirect link with Beaker-associated 
craftsmanship can be seen in the gold armlets in 
the Lockington hoard. Their style of relief ornament 
contrasts strongly with the Wessex Linear Style, but 
also be seen as Beaker-derived (Needham 2000a, 
50-5; figs. 7,8). 


The Breton Barrow Graves 


Over 80 grave assemblages from some 200 Breton 
barrows (Briard 1984, 211 ff)!’ traditionally divided 
into a so-called Primary series characterised by 
arrowheads and a Secondary one by pottery, have 
recently been reclassified by Needham (2000b) into 
five more or less sequential assemblage groups. 
Pottery is associated with the latest of these groups 
(so-called series 5). The earliest (series 1), with a 
major concentration in the Cotes-d’Armor towards 
Britain, includes the Quimperlé type knife as 
represented in the Lockington hoard (Needham Joc. 
cit., 156-8). This group and especially series 2 
includes most of the well-known rich assemblages 
of knives, axes and arrowheads with objects not only 
of bronze, copper and flint but also gold, silver, 
amber, jade, jet and traces of wood and textiles. 
Associated with these assemblages of mostly 
indigenous character are a few elements of 
emphatically foreign type such as the metal-hilted 
knife from St. Fiacre, Morbihan (loc. cit., fig. 6, 
no.6), of ultimately central European character; a 
fashion for pins (dress- or hat- or hair-pins? or 
skewers even?) which could have been similarly 
inspired (p. 180); and also halberds (although not 
certainly grave-associated: Briard 1984, 83) which 
could have teen Irish-inspired. 

However the Bell-Beaker-related involvement 
in the Barrow Grave assemblages is their most 
conspicuous element, as the late Jean L’ Helgouach 


recognised (2001, 295-7). Even though the bell- 
Beaker itself is absent (sherds being confined to 
the barrow mounds: Briard 1984, 116) these 
assemblages can be seen as including the ultimate 
splendour of the classic three-fold symbolic 
equipment (copper knife - wristguard - projectile 
head) associated with the Bell-Beaker more or less 
throughout its European range (Case in press: e.g. 
locally at Roundway 8, Fig. 7, nos. 1-4): in their 
Quimperlé and Rumédon knives, their wristguards 
of schist or other stone (Briard 1984, 106, 140; 
Needham 2000b, fig. 6, no. 16) and of amber and 
gold (Briard 1984, 106-7; Needham 2000b, fig 6, 
nos. 17-19), and their series of exotic barbed-and - 
tanged arrowheads of flint (Briard 1984, 97-106), 
even bronze (op. cit., 126-7). 

Radiocarbon results from the Barrow Graves 
(Briard 1984, 205; selection in Needham 2000b, 
186-7), although more numerous than from the 
Wessex Series are scarcely more informative at first 
sight. Results from charcoals, mostly with high 
standard deviations, more than once show 
significant age-differences within apparently related 
deposits; and some have means rather early in the 
3rd millennium, considerably earlier than would 
seem appropriate for Wessex I. This situation is only 
made more tantalising by strongly divergent results 
from the Lockington knife’s scabbard, which 
appears to have been made of composite materials 
(Watson in Hughes 2000, 47). One result is 
assignable to the third quarter of the 3rd millennium 
(3910+60 BP: OxA-6173), the other to around the 
turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia (3630455 BP: 
OxA-6447). Needham (2000b, 157; also in Hughes 
2000, 43-4) adopts a compromise between the two 
results, suggesting a terminus ante quem within the 
first quarter of the 2nd millennium. But OxA-6173 
is not inconceivable. If Bell-Beaker origins in south- 
west Atlantic Europe were around the turn of the 
first and second quarters of the 3rd millennium 
(Case 1995b, 17 - 18, and in press), it would not 
be surprising for long riveted knives to have been 
developed by the mid millennium. The Lockington 
knife might be one such; if so, it would not be very 
surprising for it to be more or less contemporary 
with or little if at all later than the rivet-tanged 
copper-arsenical knife from Shrewton 5k of the 
third quarter of the 3rd millennium (Fig. 7, no. 5; 
references above). 

Be that as it may, a date for the Lockington 
hoard itself in the fourth quarter of the 3rd 
millennium would be consistent with comparisons 
between its relief-decorated gold bracelets and some 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


decorative bronzework in the Migdale hoard, 
Sutherland (Piggott and Stewart 1958, nos. 3, 4, 
54; 3055+75 BP, OxA-4659; discussion of goldwork 
in Needham 2000a). A date just as early for some 
of the Breton Barrow Graves is implied by Krause’s 
arguments (1988, 165-6; but cf. Gerloff 1993, 75 
and Gross-Klee 1999, 60) that rivet-tanged knives 
at the Singen cemetery, Wiirttemberg, of the fourth 
quarter of the 3rd millennium were inspired by 
Breton examples. A fourth quarter date for some 
of the associated furniture of the Breton Barrow 
Graves would explain the apparent absence from 
Brittany of such late Beaker-associated assemblages 
as the epicampaniforme of the Midi; and even a 
third quarter date seems arguable (Bailly and 
Salanova 1999, fig. 2). 

Such early dates also suggest that quite a long- 
standing Breton school of fine craftsmanship may 
have preceded the Wessex Series goldwork. 
Decoration by minature gold rivet-pins from the 
hilts of the Armorico-British type A knives from 
Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 8; Hoare 1812, 204 and pl. 
XXVII, no. 2) and presumably Winterbourne Stoke 
5 (Annable and Simpson 1984, no. 266) is well- 
known. Both knives are possibly Breton imports 
(Needham 2000b, fig. 20, nos. 113, 108) and 
Needham (loc. cit., 158-9) lists eleven examples of 
decoration of this kind from the Barrow Graves, 
some of which, including associations with 
Rumédon and Quimperlé knives, may date from 
the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium or earlier. 
Similar decoration appears to have been in a west 
European Beaker tradition: for example, 
embellishing the hilt of a tanged knife in 
Ciempozuelos Beaker type association at Canada 
Rosal, Sevilla (Harrison 1974, 82-3). 

The linear-decorated gold-covered wristguard 
from the Barrow Grave La Motta (Needham loc. 
cit., fig. 6, no. 19) could also suggest some foreign 
inspiration for the Wessex Linear Style itself (and 
compare a linear decorated gold bracelet associated 
with a massive tanged knife in burial context at 
Quinta da Agua Branca, Viana de Castello: National 
Museum, Belem, Lisbon). 

Some of the Breton hilt fragments with gold 
rivet-pin decoration appear to show linear or curved 
outline patterns (Briard 1984, 88-91, fig. 56A) some 
of which may be recalled in the dotted outlines 
around skeuomorphic rivets on central European 
metal-hafted halberds (von Brunn 1959, taf. 16, 
nos 1 and 2, Dieskau 2; cf. also on two flanged axes 
from Griefstedt, op. cit., taf. 3, nos. 1 and 3). 
Conversely the chevron pattern at Tanwedou, 


179 


Cotes-d’Armor (Needham 2000b, fig. 8 no. 3) 
recalls Wilsford 5, also the lost fragment in 
Armorico-British association from a Dorset(?) 
barrow (Gerloff 1975, nos 122, 123). Rivet-pins 
were closely set both in Brittany and at Wilsford 5 
(Briard 1984, figs. 55,56; Annable and Simpson 
1964, pls), but the apparently densely ornamented 
pommel at Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 8; Hoare 1812, 
pl. XXVII, no. 2) seems exceptional, and it is 
possible that the blade may have been rehafted by 
a local British craftsman, trained in a Breton school 
but working in a local Beaker tradition - the multiple 
chevron motif lower on the hilt being combined 
with a zone of hatched elbow pattern, a rare 
combination on Beaker pottery but matched nearby 
on a Group Bb Beaker from Shrewton barrow 5a 
(Clarke 1970, fig. 643). 


The Armorico-British type B midrib knife from 
Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 9; Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 170; Hoare 1812, 203-4) 


This type (Gerloff 1975, nos. 122-134) is similar 
to type A but with a stout central midrib. Its greater 
longitudinal strength would have made it more 
suitable for stabbing, but the term midrib knife is 
used here rather than dagger to stress its 
derivation’’. In my view, more specialised daggers 
only emerged in generally Wessex II association, 
with some of Gerloff’s type C and subsequent and 
related types, with both ogival profiles and more 
emphatically lozenge-shaped cross-sections, e.g. 
Amesbury 15, (Fig. 8, no. 5; Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 351), and as on the hybrid type at Norton 
Bavant (Butterworth 1992, fig. 5, no. 1), and more 
prominently at Upton Lovell 2 (Annable and 
Simpson 1964, no. 347). 

Type B has a more emphatic north British 
distribution than type A (7/12). The six analysed 
examples are all tin-bronze, including examples in 
the Core and Sub-group: Winterborne St. Martin 
31, Little Cressingham 1 and Wilsford 5 (Gerloff 
267, Appendix 10). 

Type B is comparable to the Trévérec variant in 
the Breton Barrow Graves (Needham 2000b, fig. 
6, no. 2; fig. 7, no. 1). Trévérec variants (about 15 
recorded altogether: Joc. cit., Appendix I) are 
associated, as in Wilsford 5, with Quimperlé and/or 
Rumédon variants in over a third of their recorded 
instances (Joc. cit., fig. 3). Needham regards them 
as a somewhat later variant (Joc cit., 156, series 2 
and 3) with the midrib adopted from fourth-quarter 
or somewhat earlier halberd technology (Needham 


180 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


2000a, 43), presumably Irish. This is plausible and 
would appear to be one more instance of the 
continuity of Beaker traditions, since both Irish 
halberd and Beaker copper technology shared for 
the most part common metal resources in the 
Munster region (Coghlan and Case 1957; Case 
1966), exploited by Beaker-users from the third 
quarter of the 3rd millennium (O’Brien, 2001); and 
some of the halberds are of high arsenical alloys". 
The identification of a halberd, associated with a 
west European type knife and early axe in the 
Whitespots hoard, Co. Down (Case 1966, fig. 13, 
nos. 8-10: all of Munster-type metal and the putative 
halberd of copper-arsenical alloy), is unfortunately 
questionable (Joc. cit., 162 and Harbison 1969a, 
no.116; contra Needham 1996, 126, table 1); but 
an undoubted halberd of Munster-type metal was 
associated with early axes and riveted knife at 
Frankford, Co. Offaly (Harbison 1969a, fig. 1C; 
and note also the possible association of a halberd 
and an exceptionally long rivet-tanged knife at 
Faversham, Kent (Case 1966, fig.11,nos.1 and 2). 


ARCHAIC AND MORE 
RECENT TYPES IN 
WESSEX SERIES BURIALS 


The chronological span of the Breton Barrow 
Graves 


The amber disc-shaped and trapezoidal pendants 
probably from Wilsford 7 (fig. 6, nos. 16-18; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 151, 149, 150; 
Hoare 1812, 202 and pl. XXV, no. 9) have been 
compared in form if not decoration to Breton amber 
pendants (Briard 1984, fig. 85; Needham 2000b, 
fig. 6, nos, 21-3) from the Barrow Grave Plouvorn, 
Kernonen, Cotes-d’Armor (Briard 1984, 262-3; 
Needham 2000b, fig. 3, no. 11, series 2). As with 
almost all Barrow Grave deposits, burial traces did 
not survive at Plouvorn; but the excavator 
considered the pendants to have adorned a single 
burial (Briard 1984, 55, 138) more or less centrally 
placed in the massive stone-built trapezoidal burial 
chamber (op. cit., fig. 31), with adjacent to it discrete 
offerings of bronze knives and axes and flint 
arrowheads, some in wooden boxes (coffrets). One 
of these deposits (Briard 1984, fig. 56; Needham 
2000b, 172-3) consisted of two superimposed 
‘Treévérec type midrib-knives placed athwart another 
knife of possibly Quimperlé type (all in their 


scabbards?). The hilts of all three had been 
decorated with minature gold rivet-pins and in the 
traces of the scabbard of the uppermost blade were - 
two copper or bronze pins. One ring-headed pin is 
of a type recurrent in central Europe; and in the 
Barrow Graves generally in silver and present in 
Needham’s series 1 contexts (2000b, fig. 5, no. 11; 
178), but a somewhat later date for the type would 
present no serious problems in a west European 
context (cf. bone example in first quarter of the 
2nd millennium context in grave pit 11, Radley, 
Oxon.: Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, fig. 
4.82; 3320+70 BP, OxA-1886). The other pin 
however is wheel-headed (Briard 1984, fig. 56; 
Needham 2000b, fig. 6, no. 13), unique in the 
Barrow Graves but comparable to central European 
Tumulus Culture pins datable not earlier than 1600 
BC (Speyer type, A2/B period in conventional 
classification: I am grateful to Sabine Gerloff for 
comment). 

Thus the implication is that the early Barrow 
Grave cult endured for some three-quarters of a 
millennium, with archaic types appropriate to the 
fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium or earlier still 
being deposited in graves towards or around the 
mid 2nd. This implication would be consistent with 
the strongly divergent radiocarbon results from this 
barrow; and it would not be inconsistent logically 
with Needham’s interpretation of the deposits here 
and at some other barrows as successive rather than 
unitary (2000b, 168-76, contra Briard 1984, e.g. 
39).'To deny the implication that the early Breton 
Barrow Grave cult was long enduring, one would 
have to assert (as Needham does: 2000b, 180) that 
the wheel-headed pin was an early local invention 
independent of central European models. In my 
view, however, it could reasonably be taken as one 
more example of long-range east-west interchanges 
of ideas and objects towards or around the mid 2nd 
millennium: as suggested by the Zutrich- 
Mozartstrasse bead and seen in the central 
European and Aegean spacer-plates — or earlier as 
seen in the metal-hilted knife at St Fiacre (p. 178) 
and the Irish Ballyvalley type axe in the Saxo- 
Thuringian Dieskau 2 hoard discussed below (p. 
181). 

Finally, as a commentary on the preceding 
paragraphs, note that successive early Wessex Series 
barrow burials are elusive. Both the 1803 and 1807 
deposits at Upton Lovell 2e should be secondary 
(I am grateful for discussion with Paul Robinson). 
Another might be inferred from the summary 
records of Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Grinsell 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


1959,152), but the earlier burials at Weymouth 8 
are indeterminate (op. cit., 141). In contrast, 
mixture of archaic and more recent types is 
altogether more apparent; but first one must return 
to Wilsford 5 and consider its date. 


The bronze axe from Wilsford 5 (Fig. 7, no. 10; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 178; Hoare 1812, 
203 and pl. XXVI, no. 1) 


This hammer-flanged and stop-bevelled thin butted 
axe is best matched among technologically 
advanced examples of the Irish Ballyvalley type 
(Harbison 1969b, 32-55; cf. also bevelled-edge 
variant from Clontarf, Co. Dublin, Fig. 7, no. 11: 
Ashmolean Museum 1927. 2754), rather than 
among Scottish (type Bb: Coles 1968/9, 10-15) or 
Breton examples (e.g. Briard 1984, 77-9) or most 
central European axes (e.g. von Brunn 1959, 
passim); and the same is true of other smaller or 
more fragmentary examples in Wessex Series 
associations: including Weymouth 8, Dorset, with 
three fragmentary Armorico-British type A knives 
and gold pommel cap, with goldwork comparable 
to Wilsford 5 (Grinsell 1959, 141; Clarke er al. 1985, 
pls. 4.58, 4.59); and apparently Breach Farm, 
Glamorgan, with flint barbed-and-tanged 
arrowheads and an Aldbourne cup (Grimes 1938). 
The metal composition of the Wilsford 5 axe also 
favours Irish connections (cf. Northover’s Irish 
metal group F2, the Clontarf axe being of group C 
metal). C and F are the dominant groups associated 
with Irish technologically advanced flat axes, F 
associated with southern Ireland, C with a more 
northerly emphasis (I am grateful to Peter 
Northover for information). 

About half the Irish Ballyvalley and nearly a third 
of the Scottish Bb axes (among them the tech- 
nologically advanced forms) are decorated, charac- 
teristically with so-called rain pattern. Decorated axes 
in this style were secondary to a Beaker burial at 
Willerby 235, Yorks. (Kinnes and Longworth 1985, 
111); another was deposited at the west entrance of 
the Earthwork Enclosure, Mount Pleasant, 
Dorchester, Dorset (Britton in Wainwright 1979, 
128-138), and another was in the central European 
Dieskau 2 hoard (von Brunn 1959, taf. 16, no.3). 


Central European analogies 
Connections have often been proposed between 


Wilsford 5 (and other burials of the Core and Sub- 
group) and the Unetician so-called Princely Graves 


181 


(Fuirstengraber) of central Europe: specifically, 
Helmsdorf, Leubingen and the recently identified 
Dieskau 1, within an area of about 1000 square km 
in the Saale basin, the first two under massive 
barrows; and the linear barrow group of Leki Male, 
about 300km northeast, and southwest of Poznan 
(summaries and references in O Riordain 1937, 
204-8; Coles and Harding 1979, 40-3; Clarke et al. 
1985, 142-5, 311-3; Gerloff 1996, 14; Harding 
2000, 97-8). Also brought into comparison are 
central European hoards of bronze objects such as 
Dieskau 2 (O Riordain 1937, passim; von Brunn 
1959; Clarke et al. 1985, 146, 315-8), mainly from 
the Saale basin and with some contents in common 
with the Princely Graves. 

Both the Princely Graves and the Wessex Series 
Sub-group burials are of apparently heroic nature, 
under barrows with weapons or implements cf 
copper, bronze and stone, and ornaments of gold 
and amber. But the resemblances to the Wessex 
Series, although beguiling, are less close than in 
the case of the Breton Barrow Graves. 

The axe/knife association as at Wilsford 5 is 
indeed recurrent in the central European graves and 
hoards but associations with the halberd are almost 
as frequent. The metal-hafted knives recurrent in 
central Europe, and similar fine castings such as 
the so-called metal-hafted halberds, are missing 
from the Wessex Series. The gold-bound amber 
halberd-pendants from Wilsford 8 and Preshute 1a 
(Fig. 6, nos.1, 8; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 
180, 200; Wilsford 8, Hoare 1812, 201 and pl. XXV) 
have often been compared to central European 
metal-hafted halberds (as represented at Leki Male; 
and in the hoards, e.g. Dieskau 2, von Brunn 1959, 
taf. 10, nos. 1 and 3; Melz II, Schoknecht 1971) 
but the resemblances are not very close, and the 
unornamented amber haft from Hengistbury Head 
3 (e.g. Clarke et al. 1985, fig. 4.55) could as readily 
represent a purely wooden haft as present indeed 
at Helmsdorf and apparently elsewhere throughout 
the halberd world, including Ireland. The serpentine 
adze or pick at Leubingen and the stone battleaxe 
at Helmsdorf could be seen as ritual equipment 
equivalent to the maceheads from Wilsford 5 
(Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 175) and 
Winterborne St. Martin 31 (Clarke et al. 1985, pl. 
4.54) and further afield at Towthorpe C39 (Gerloff 
1975, pl. 45 A, no. 3). But this can only serve to 
emphasise that craft tools such as the adze or pick 
and the cushion-stone from Leubingen and the 
bronze chisels at Helmsdorf, Leubingen and Leki 
Male are absent from the Wessex Core and Sub- 


182 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


group. The gold and amber objects in both series 
are not closely matched. Ashbee’s well-known 
reconstruction of the Wilsford 5 burial as extended 
(1960, 77) would match the criss-cross burials at 
Leubingen but not the contracted burial at 
Helmsdorf. (Ashbee admitted that Hoare’s account 
of the Wilsford 5 burial was imprecise, but cf. 
extended burial at Towthorpe C39, East Yorks., also 
in Armorico-British A association; Mortimer 1905, 
5-6, Gerloff 1975, no. 111.) Finally, unlike the 
Breton Barrow Graves, the central European 
contexts show little or no Beaker cultural 
inspiration; the apparent representation of a West 
European knife in the Neuenheilingen hoard seems 
exceptional (von Brunn 1959, taf. 66, no. 3). 

Reliable dendrochronological radiocarbon dates 
for Leubingen and Helmsdorf bracket the first 
quarter of the 2nd millennium rather closely 
(respectively 1942+10 BC; 1840+10 BC: Becker 
et al. 1989). A result from Leki Male barrow 1, grave 
A (3605+35 BP; Gerloff 1993, 97), where a metal- 
hafted halberd was represented, suggests a terminus 
post quem around the turn of the 3rd and 2nd 
millennia. Three results were obtained from the 
wooden cores of metal-hafted halberds in the Melz 
II hoard, Mecklenburg - Pommern (Gerloff loc. cit.: 
3815+100 BP, 3720+100 BP, 3675+100 BP; Bln- 
985, 982, 983; Schocknecht 1971, where the cores 
were identified as ash and one of lime; Muller 1999 
Abb. 19b), and suggest with rather more emphasis 
a fourth quarter date for the metal-hafted type. And 
a similar date (3690+40 BP; GrN-11895) came 
from a Unetician grave at Feuersbrunn, Lower 
Austria (Gerloff 1993, 97: Muller, Joc. cit.) with 
non-metal hafted halberds and a waisted flanged 
axe - an axe type occurring variously in the hoards 
and Princely Graves, and represented by a socketed 
skeuomorph in the Melz II hoard. 

These results taken together suggest first, that 
these assemblages like those in the Breton Barrow 
Graves, represent a prolonged tradition rooted in 
the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium and 
extending through most of the first quarter of the 
2nd; and secondly, that such connections as there 
were with the Wessex Series were significantly earlier 
than the Wessex-inspired central European and 
Aegean ones, suggested by the Ztrich- 
Mozartstrasse bead and the amber spacer-plates. 


What was the date of Wilsford 5? 


The upper half of a Biconical Urn presumably 
collected from its surface (Annable and Simpson 


1964, no. 558), possibly derived from a burial 
inserted in the mound, can be taken to belong to 
the fully developed series of such Urns and thus 
provide a terminus ante quem for the barrow 
around the mid 2nd millennium (I am grateful to 
David Tomalin for comment)!*, although 
stratification and association at Amesbury 71 could 
suggest a later terminus (reference: note 16 below). 

Thence, extrapolating backwards, the decorated 
Ballyvalley type axe from Mount Pleasant, Dorset 
was on the surface of primary silting (Wainwright 
1979, fig. 24) where the Main Enclosure’s west 
entrance ditches had been redug towards the end 
of the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium (op. 
cit., 38: 3734+41 BP, BM-645; 3728+59 BP, BM- 
646), thus during the Beaker period. It had been 
sealed by silting equivalent to that associated 
elsewhere at the redug west entrance with Collared 
Urn and Beaker sherds and spanning the turn of 
the millennia and the first quarter of the 2nd 
millennium (op. cit., 40: 3619455 BP BM-790; 
3459+53 BP, BM-789). This suggests that the axe 
was deposited early in the first quarter of the 2nd 
millennium, and I adopt this provisional date for 
the Wilsford 5 burial and the deposit of its 
Ballyvalley type axe, thus equivalent in date to the 
Leubingen Princely Grave and about midway 
within the chronological range of the Breton Barrow 
Graves. 


Does Wilsford 5 show a mixture of archaic and 
more recent types? 


It appears it does, since its Breton type knives belong 
to a tradition which goes back to at least the fourth 
quarter of the 3rd millennium (p. 179). Such an 
early date finds some confirmation in the Killaha 
East hoard, Co. Kerry (Harbison 1969a, fig. 2A), 
where a long riveted copper-arsenical knife of the 
same general family as the Breton, Lockington and 
Wilsford 5 examples was associated not only with a 
bronze halberd, but also with bronze axes of the Irish 
Killaha type considered typologically earlier than the 
Ballyvalley type as represented in Wilsford 5. 


Do other Wessex Series burials show a similar 
mixture? 


Thus at Wilsford 5 an innovative type axe was buried 
with knives in an earlier tradition. Identifying other 
similar examples involves mainly objects of the 
Wessex Linear style; and involves accepting Taylor’s 
arguments that these were the products of a fairly 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


short-lived local school of craftsmanship 
(references, p. 171). This school can be taken to 
have been active in the first quarter of the 2nd 
millennium - or even around the turn of the 3rd or 
2nd millennia. Such an early date would be 
consistent with Breton origins for some of the 
craftsmanship involved (p. 179) and with the 
inferred date at Radley 2 (p. 174). 

Some geographically significant assemblages 
from the Sub-group and others need be no later 
than Wilsford 5: southwards, the lost assemblage 
from a ‘Dorset’ barrow (Gerloff 1975, pl. 46 B) 
and near the coast Weymouth 8, an assemblage 
resembling Wilsford 5 quite closely (op. cit. pl. 46 
A; Grinsell 1959, 141); and on the coast itself 
possibly Hengistbury Head 3, despite its cremation 
burial, since its halberd pendant may not be later 
than the latest development of the halberd in Ireland 
and its recurrent deposits in central Europe from 
the fourth quarter of the 3rd millennium (p. 182). 
Towards the East Anglian coast, Little Cressingham 
1 need not be appreciably later than Wilsford 5, 
even though its gold pectoral does not seem to have 
been worked by the same hand as some of the 
Wiltshire pieces (Taylor 1980, 46). 

Other assemblages suggest contrastingly wide 
chronological ranges, with objects made early in 
the 2nd millennium or around then remaining 
fashionable or revered for very long periods. At 
Wilsford 7, Beaker sherd, Collared Urn and Wessex 
Linear style goldwork together appear to tie the 
assemblage to the first quarter of the 2nd 
millennium, but the resemblance of the amber disc 
and trapezoidal pendants to those at Kernonen 
suggest a fashion lasting to about the mid 2nd 
millennium (p. 00). Similarly, the gold-bound ovoid 
and fusiform beads in Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, nos. 12 
and 13; Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 156, 157) 
appear to have been quite closely matched by those 
among the lost finds from a bell-barrow at Great 
Bircham near the Norfolk coast (Thurnam 1871, 
525, figs. 216, 217; Clarke 1960, 75), which 
included a cremation in a Biconical Urn with 
arciform lugs (so-called horseshoe handles)'°— a 
pottery sub-type which may not have become 
prevalent in southern Britain until the second 
quarter of the 2nd millennium. 

Likewise, whereas the halberd-pendants at 
Wilsford 8 and Preshute la could fix both 
assemblages no later than the first quarter of the 
2nd millennium, central European and Aegean 
comparanda suggest that their gold-bound amber 
discs and beads remained fashionable or revered 


183 


towards or around the mid millennium. Amber 
spacer-plates at Upton Lovell 2e suggest a similarly 
late survival, whereas the affinities of the gold 
plaque, button cover and ‘boxes’ are first quarter if 
not earlier (pp. 172, 174); their late survival seems 
emphasised by the small bronze blade from the 
same assemblage (illustrated more complete in 
Hoare 1812, pl. XI than in Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 229 or in Gerloff 1975, Pls. 24, no. 272; 
53A, no. 6), which can be compared to probably 
second quarter examples at Norton Bavant 
(Butterworth 1992, fig. 5, no. 2) and Wilsford 23 
(Fig. 8, no. 2). Winterbourne St. Martin 31 might 
be another example showing late survival of earlier 
types, but it is doubtful whether the assemblage is 
coherent (Grinsell 1959, 152) and the identification 
of its Aldbourne cup is uncertain (Clarke et al. 1985, 
274-5). 

However there are other examples outside the 
Core and Sub-core groups: Winterbourne Stoke 5 
(Hoare 1812, 122-3 and pl. XVID) with two knives 
of Armorico-British type A, both of Rumédon type 
and one a Breton import (Needham 2000b, fig. 20, 
no. 108) with possibly a gold pin decorated scabbard 
(Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 266 and pl.), 
associated with the well-known sherds of a handled 
pot of later Breton affinity (Tomalin 1988, 209-10 
and passim, but cf. Needham loc. cit., 181); 
Hammeldon, Devon, with Wessex Linear style gold 
and amber pommel and a Camerton type Wessex 
II dagger (Gerloff 1975, no. 194, 109-10); Breach 
Farm, Llanbleddian, Glamorgan, with thirteen flint 
barbed-and-tanged arrowheads, a Ballyvalley type 
bronze axe and a Wessex II type Aldbourne cup 
(Grimes 1938)!". Wilsford 23, in the Normanton 
Down Group (Fig. 3A), qualifies with a hybrid 
midrib knife / Camerton type dagger (Fig. 8, no. 1; 
Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 164; Gerloff 1975, 
no.135, type B/C) and a bronze crutch-headed pin 
of Wessex II type (Fig. 8, no. 4; Annable and 
Simpson 1964, no. 166; Gerloff 1975, 111) with 
lozenge decoration like the Urn in Wilsford 7. Type 
B/C would also apply to the blade at Norton Bavant, 
Wilts. (Fig. 8, no. 6; Cleal in Butterworth 1992, 13 
- 14) associated as also at Wilsford 23 with a Wessex 
II whetstone-pendant (Fig. 8, no. 3; Annable and 
Simpson 1964, no. 163; Gerloff 1975, 112-3; Hoare 
1812, 199 and pl. XXIV). Finally, Amesbury 15 
(Fig. 3A; Grinsell 1957, 207; Hoare 1812, 205-6), 
a bell barrow 400 metres north-west of the 
Normanton Group, intervisible with Stonehenge 
(Cleal in Cleal et al.1995, fig. 23) and near its 
midwinter sunset alignment, with a Snowshill type 


184 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 8. Bronze dagger and midrib knife, stone whetstone-pendant and bronze pin from Wilsford 23, nos. 1-4; bronze 
daggers from Amesbury 15 and Norton Bavant, nos. 5, 6; bone-belt hooks from Norton Bavant, Wilsford 16 west, 
and Wilsford 18, nos. 7-9. Nos. 6 and 7 after Butterworth 1992. Nos. 1-9, all at 1:2 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


dagger (Fig. 8, no. 5; Annable and Simpson 1964, 
no. 351; Gerloff 1975, no. 160) and an unusual 
wooden structure (?dismantled parts cf. Breton 
structures, e.g. Briard 1984, 42-6), might show late 
survival of an early type if its ‘richly ornamented 
drinking cup’ (Hoare 1812, 207) was indeed a 
Beaker. (But note that Cunnington and Colt Hoare 
similarly described the Collared Urn from Wilsford 
7: p. 163 above; Hoare 1812, 202). 


Foundation and female burials 


Like the Breton Barrow Graves and central 
European hoards and Princely Graves, the contents 
of the Wessex Series show long-enduring traditions. 
The burial assemblages described above show 
ranges of early to late, approaching sometimes half 
a millennium. A number of explanations could be 
argued with varying plausibility. Only Norton 
Bavant has a radiocarbon date (3410+35 BP; BM- 


185 


2909): best taken as second quarter of the 2nd 
millennium BC. Useful help might be provided by 
high-precision dating of primary human bone which 
may remain at the base of Cunnington’s infilled 
excavations at Wilsford 7 and 5. In default, a view 
must be taken; and the one adopted here is that 
Wilsford 5, Little Cressingham 1, Weymouth 8, the 
‘Dorset’ burial and possibly Hengistbury Head 3 
are first quarter of the 2nd millennium; and that 
Wilsford 7 and 8, and Preshute la are not 
significantly later. Wilsford 23 like Norton Bavant 
should be second quarter of the 2nd millennium 
and likewise Upton Lovell 2e and the same is taken 
to be true for Breach Farm, Hammeldon, Great 
Bircham and Amesbury 15, and may be so for 
Winterbourne Stoke 5. 

This view implies that there were strategically 
placed foundation burials of men, such as Wilsford 
5 and Little Cressingham 1, and that men’s burials 
continued into the second quarter (Norton Bavant), 


Tae ee EM 


CMS 


Fig. 9. Beaker from Wilsford 2b, no. 1. Beakers and associations from Wilsford 1, nos. 2-8; no. 6 bone, no. 7 boar’s 
tusk. Nos. 2-8 partly after Clarke 1970. Nos. 1-8, all at 1:3 


186 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


but that women’s burials (Preshute la) and some 
‘female burials’ in Gerloff’s definition (1975, 258- 
260; but cf pp. 171, 172 above) were not necessarily 
if at all later than men’s (contra Gerloff 1975, 245; 
1996, 15). 


STONEHENGE AND THE 
NORMANTON GORSE / 
NORMANTON DOWN 
BARROW GROUP 


I take the view that the stone constructions at 
Stonehenge were built by Group D Beaker users 
over a rather prolonged period, starting during the 
third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC (Case 1997 
in review of Cleal et al. 1995). 

The Beaker-period burial in the ditch was made 
around the turn of the third and fourth quarters 
(Case loc. cit., 164) and stone construction was 
virtually completed during the fourth quarter (loc. 
Clt., 1165). 

By the fourth quarter in my reckoning, Beaker 
barrow burials began to appear at locations 
southwest to northwest of the monument, at what 
later became the sites of three of the four major 
barrow groups surrounding it (Fig. 3A): at the 
Winterbourne Stoke Cross Roads Group, barrows 
10 and 54 (Annable and Simpson 1964 nos. 105, 
53-8 and refs); at the Fargo/Cursus Group, 
Amesbury barrows 51 (e.g. Fig. 5, no. 7; Ashbee 
1975/6), 54 (Annable and Simpson 1964, nos. 67- 
9 and refs.) and the so-called ‘Fargo henge’ ring- 
barrow (Case 1995a and refs.); and at the 
Normanton Gorse/Normanton Down group, 
Wilsford 2b (Fig. 9, no. 1; Annable and Simpson 
1964, no. 103 and ref.) and Wilsford 1 (Fig. 9, nos. 
2-5, 8; Clarke 1970, figs. 67, 183, 182, 138, 219 
and catalogue entries; Field 1961; information 
Edwina Proudfoot)'*. These barrows are on the 
fringes of later developments at their respective 
groups, as at Lambourn, Berks., and Barrow Hills, 
Radley, Oxon., and are similarly widely spaced 
(Case 1956/7, pl. 1, nos. 17, 31; Barclay in Barclay 
and Halpin 1999, fig. 9.11) and at the Fargo/Cursus 
group they followed a linear pattern (Ashbee 1975/ 
6, fig. 1; cf. Radley, op. cit.). 

However, to the immediate east of the 
monument knowledge about the New and Old King 
Barrows (Fig. 3A) is limited. At present they appear 
to be anomalous groups (Richards 1990, 273; Cleal 
in Cleal et al. 1995, 488-9) with little evidence for 


Beaker-associated activity in their vicinity (Cleal and 
Allen 1994, 72). Further east however an 
exceptionally rich burial has recently been 
discovered at Boscombe Down, Amesbury 
(information Andrew Fitzpatrick). 

Of these Beaker burial clusters by Stonehenge, 
Wilsford 1 and 2b may be among the earliest and 
are significant since they belong exclusively to the 
D Group as represented at the monument itself, 
and they lie in the general direction of its midwinter 
sunset alignment!’. They can be taken as a 
development from a Beaker focus represented by 
typologically early Beakers from barrows about 
900m south and downslope (Wilsford 52, 54: Smith 
1991, fig. 8, P 4; fig. 12, P 6-8; and the decoration 
towards the base of Fig. 9, no. 3 from Wilsford 1 
has some affinity with that of P 214 from the North 
Kite earthwork alongside Wilsford 52 and 54, 
Raymond in Richards 1990, fig. 136)°°. Wilsford 
2b with burials of men and Wilsford 1 
predominantly with women, children and infants 
appear at least partly to reflect an enduring Beaker- 
associated gender-age separation in burial (Case 
in Case and Whittle 1983, 105). 

Wessex Series developments at these 
Stonehenge Beaker burial clusters are outstanding 
examples of a well-known and widespread general 
trend in barrow burial in Britain, with cremation 
generally replacing inhumation and sometimes 
accompanied by Food Vessels, Urns and minature 
vessels - for example in southern England in the 
Thames valley (Barclay in Barclay and Halpin 1999, 
323-5) and in south Dorset (Healy in Smith et al. 
1997, 287-290). Among other features, this trend 
partly reflects fresh styles of settlement pottery in 
Britain replacing Beaker wares from the fourth 
quarter of the 3rd millennium (e.g. Healy 1995, 
esp. 179-183), and the fading away on a pan- 
European scale (from the turn of the millennia in 
Britain) of the symbolically-charged association of 
Beaker-knife-wristguard-arrowhead. 

Thus the Normanton Down group spread 
eastwards from its Beaker foundation burials in a 
general linear pattern (Fig. 3A; cf. Radley, Barclay 
and Halpin op. cit. above) along the ridge of the 
near skyline from Stonehenge (Cleal in Cleal et al., 
figs. 22, 23). Wilsford 5, a comparatively massive 
example in the most conspicuous position (Cleal 
in op. cit., 490; cf. similar positions of Weymouth 8 
and Winterbourne St. Martin 31) is taken to be the 
foundation burial of the new series, with 7 (similarly 
with an inhumation burial and (?) aligned on 5) 
and 8 (with a cremation burial) little if at all later. I 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


suggest that they formed a single dynastic burial 
place early in the first quarter of the 2nd 
millennium. Barrows (generally with cremation 
burials where recorded by Colt Hoare) then 
continued to spread eastwards from Wilsford 8 (Fig. 
3A) with expansion lasting through the first quarter 
into the second - if the date obtained from Norton 
Bavant (p. 185) can be applied to Wilsford 16 west 
and Wilsford 18 similarly with bone belt-hooks (Fig. 
8, nos 7-9; Butterworth 1992, fig. 5, no. 4; Annable 
and Simpson 1964, nos, 306, 313; Hoare 1812, 200 
and pl. XXIV)”!. Finally, a second quarter date 
would be appropriate for Wilsford 23 (p. 185) near 
the extreme east of the group. Thus a process by 
no means necessarily uniform took place over some 
15 generations or more (counting about 25 years 
each), during which the material culture was 
changing, with the development of efficient daggers 
reflecting a more competitive social pattern, and 
with land tenure tending to become more 
regularised with an increase in arable (seen in the 
silting of the Y-holes at Stonehenge: Allen in Cleal 
et al 1995, 332). Accretion to the Normanton Down 
barrow group at its west during the later part of 
this process is taken to be represented by Amesbury 
15, and by disc-barrow 3 (with cremation burial 
and jet, amber and faience beads; Annable and 
Simpson 1964, nos. 390-5; Hoare 1812, 205), and 
perhaps its neighbours 2 and 4 and possibly at least 
one secondary burial at Wilsford 5 (p. 182). 
Thereafter, the axe-carvings at the Sarsen Circle 
recalling the Arreton style (Lawson and Walker in 
Cleal et al. 1995, 32) and the comparative frequency 
of Middle Bronze Age pottery at the monument 
(including Deverel-Rimbury sherds: Cleal in op. cit., 
357-9) show that activity continued to be associated 
with the monument, around which land divisions had 
become still more formalised (Allen in op. cit., 333). 
Of the post-Beaker barrow developments 
around the monument, Wilsford 5, 7 and 8 overlook 
Stonehenge and appear uniquely closely attached 
to it. These burial assemblages and others show the 
transformation of the material culture of the Beaker 
élite who had built the monument and now 
controlled access to it - a transformation deriving 
from the monument’s exceptional reputation (in 
its ingenious and enduring stone construction) as 
a medium for communicating with the Otherworld 
and influencing it (opinions along these lines in e.g. 
Darvill 1997, Whittle 1997). 
4 At Wilsford 5, 7 and 8, the transformation is 
above all seen in the products of a school of 
craftsmanship which included the potter of the Urn 


187 


in Wilsford 7, and which combined old and new 
designs with unsurpassed inventiveness and skill, 
in producing products charged with symbolism for 
a group of initiates - including minature ornaments 
for those accustomed periodically to eyeing each 
other at close quarters”’. 

These exotic objects and outlying examples of 
variously similar craftsmanship suggest that this élite 
lay at the hub of a complex web of gifts and exchanges 
to and fro, which variously drew in widely and in 
turn transmitted materials, knowledge, ideology and 
practices, even objects themselves (e.g. Beck and 
Shennan 1991; Shennan 1993, 59-66; Needham 
2000b, 181-191), for example: early, outwards, fairly 
short-range and possibly random at barrow 2, Radley, 
Oxon (p. 174); late, outwards, long-range and very 
long-range and possibly less random at Plouvorn, 
(p. 180), Ztirich-Mozartstrasse and in the Aegean 
(Harding 1984, 79-80); and early and late, inwards, 
over the medium range and non-random, concerned 
with the supply of amber and its working (Shennan 
1993, 65); and inwards over a longer range seen in 
the Breton knives at Wilsford 5 and Winterbourne 
Stoke 5, the Irish axe in Wilsford 5, pottery syles at 
Wilsford 7, and possibly gold supply. 

Exchange of kin may have been involved as 
implied at Wilsford 7 (p. 170), and regional and 
more distant examples may also show long enduring 
contacts between close kin: at Preshute La, possibly 
near a source of the Stonehenge sarsens, being only 
2.5km east of the great spread of boulders surviving 
around Fyfield Down to Lockeridge; at Upton 
Loveil 2e, towards a potential route from the source 
of the bluestones and one of gold procurement 
(Case 1997, 166); at Little Cressingham I and Great 
Bircham, Norfolk near the East Anglian sources of 
amber~’; and at Weymouth 8, Winterbourne St. 
Martin 31 and Hengistbury Head 3” near likely 
points of access for continental kin, gifts (p. 177) 
and specialist craftsmen (pp. 179). 

Transformation was fuelled by ideology and was 
intense but selective, symbolised above all by 
exceptional craftsmanship. It was not achieved 
following a massive influx of resident population 
(note Allen’s view that the work force necessary for 
building Stonehenge was local: 1997, 14); nor was 
it reflected in major productive activity (cf. the high 
frequency of early axe moulds and axeheads in 
northeast Scotland: Coles 1968/9, fig. 25), nor at 
this stage in exceptionally massive procurement of 
exotic substances (cf. the minute mass of gold in 
Wessex Series burials with that represented by Irish 
lunulae, Taylor 1999, 111; and note that, although 


188 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


an exceptional quantity of amber was represented 
at Upton Lovell 2e, pre-eminence of Early Bronze 
Wessex in its procurement was less than at first 
appears; Beck and Shennan 1991, 77, 80, 98). Nor 
was it seen in sustained effort at Stonehenge itself, 
where comparatively minor modifications at the 
Bluestone Horseshoe and Circle may possibly have 
extended into the first quarter of the 2nd millennium 
(Cleal in Cleal et al. 1995, 231; I owe this suggestion 
to Mike Pitts), and where the presumably second 
quarterY and Z hole modifications were abandoned 
(Walker in Cleal et al. 1995, 256-265); nor was it 
seen in the Normanton Down and nearby barrow 
groups in exceptionally big barrows on an 
international scale.” 


ADDENDUM 


Northern connections (p. 170 above) are also 
suggested by general comparisons between the gold 
discs from a burial at Barnhill, Angus, and the gold 
and amber discs from Wilsford 8 (Taylor in Clarke 
et al. 1985, 186-7, and pls. 4.31 and 4.32). A 
radiocarbon result probably early in the first quarter 
of the 2nd millennium BC associated with the 
Barnhill burial (Sheridan 2002, 795) can also 
strengthen arguments for a similarly early date in 
Wiltshire for the discs from Wilsford 8 and that from 
Preshute la. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I am especially grateful for comment and infor- 
mation from Nicholas Griffiths and Paul 
Robinson; and to Rosamund Cleal, Andrew 
Fitzpatrick, Sabine Gerloff, Alex Gibson, Ian 
Kinnes, Andrew Lawson, Terry Manby, Giovanna 
Bermond Montanari and members of the research 
group Archéologie et Gobelets, Mike Pitts, Peter 
North-over, Edwina Proudfoot, Alison Sheridan, 
Derek Simpson, David Tomalin, and Ann 
Woodward. 

Nicholas Griffiths drew the illustrations. 
Drawings of objects in the Stourhead Collection ar 
19e mostly based on illustrations in the 1964 
Museum catalogue (Annable and Simpson 1964). 
Fig. 1, nos. 1 and 3, Fig. 5, nos 1 and 3 and Fig. 6, 
no.7 have been redrawn; and attention has been 
given to earlier publications and to the Crocker 
watercolours in the Wiltshire Heritage Library at 
Devizes, which were commissioned by Colt Hoare 
and on which some of the illustrations in Hoare 
(1812) were based. 


Notes 


1. Not surprisingly some decorative motifs such as the 
zigzag panel are shared with later Grooved Ware (e.g. 
Woodhenge: Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 3) 
despite differences in fabric in the two traditions in 
Wessex (Cleal 1995, fig. 16.2, 190-2). 

2. Notable Beaker contexts in Wiltshire, both Group D: 
Mere 6a and Bishops Cannings 81 (reserved), Case 
1995a, fig. 2, nos. 1, 10. 

3. Case 1995b, 20-1, 23. Motifs of this north British style 
are also characteristic of Irish lunulae (Taylor 1970, 
pls. XIII, XIV) and are represented in Irish Bowl and 
Vase pottery (Case 1995b, 20-22). 

4. Some light on this might be thrown on this by analysis 
of dental enamel if skeleton was re-excavated? Cf. 
Budd, Evans and Chenery 2002. 

5. Excavated in 1803 (Cunnington 1806a, 128-129) and 
re-excavated in 1807. Unfortunately there must be 
an element of doubt as to whether the Collared Urns 
excavated in 1807 (Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 
230, and presumably Hoare 1812, pl. XI) were 
associated with the 1803 assemblage; this is reflected 
in Fig. 4. 

6. See note 5 above. In addition to doubt concerning the 
urns from Upton Lovell 2e, doubt must exist as to 
whether Annable and Simpson nos. 152 and 154 (not 
otherwise quoted here) may be correctly associated 
with the Wilsford 7 assemblage (information Paul 
Robinson). Otherwise, provenances of objects in the 
Stourhead Collection as catalogued in 1964 and 
specifically quoted here are taken as reliable. Some 
degree of their reliability is inferred from quoted page 
and/or plate references in Hoare (1812). 

7. And note rectangular ‘Chinese box’ motif also on the 
gold pectoral at Little Cressingham 1 (Gerloff 1975, 
pl. 46, F 10). 

8. If not earlier, since the base of the pendant or button 
from Upton Lovell 2e (Fig. 5, no. 2), like those of the 
wooden pestle- beads from Shrewton 5j (Green and 
Rollo-Smith 1984, fig. 28), may recall the solar 
imagery (Darvill 1997, 187, 190) attributed to Group 
D associated gold discs, as at Mere 6a (Case 1995a, 
fig. 25.no:3)). 

9.'Too small however for most of the buttons surviving in 
the hoard. 

10. Cf. miniature shale or jet pendant possibly in form of 
a bronze flat axe, associated with amber bead in 
cremation pit 1043, Ashville, Abingdon, Oxon.: 
Parrington 1978, fig. 26, nos. 2-5. Miniaturisation is 
also a Beaker characteristic: cf. knives with 
inhumation burial, Dorchester-on-Thames site XII, 
Oxon. (Whittle et al. 1992, 179). 

11. Allen and Hopkins (2000) suggest that miniature 
vessels were used in group sessions as burners for 
producing trance-inducing smoke; but personal 
fumigation seems another possible use - with 
seductive intent or for quelling parasites. 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


12. Out of a total number of some 750 barrows; op. cit., 
19-21. 

13. A fully objective term for all three (knives, midrib 
knives and daggers) would be blade (cf. French 
lame). 

14. And the persistence of copper-arsenical metal for 
halberds in the central European Princely Graves and 
hoards alongside axes apparently exclusively of tin- 
bronze (Otto and Witter 1952, passim) appears 
significant, since some halberds were being made of 
tin-bronze at this date in central Europe and Ireland. 

15. A first appearance of the Biconical Urn in southern 
Britain in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium 
seems possible, with full development in the second 
quarter and demise in the third. Another sherd, a 
body sherd about 3.5 by 2.5cm, recently identified 
as from the surface of Wilsford 5 (information Paul 
Robinson) is of indeterminate Early Bronze Age 
character. 

16. Jars or Urns with arciform lugs had a long life in 
north-west France extending towards the mid 2nd 
millennium, but with antecedents in the Beaker period 
before the end of the 3rd millennium (Billard er al. 1992), 
if not earlier. Locally a late date for the sub-type seems 
indicated by association with a Class I bronze razor at 
Amesbury 71, following a Beaker - Food Vessel - 
Collared Urn sequence (Christie 1967, 348). 

17. The only other apparently Wessex Series or related 
associations with barbed-and-tanged flint arrowheads 
are at Beauly, Inverness, with an Armorico-British 
type B blade (Green 1980, 291; Gerloff 1975, no. 
133), Figheldean 26 with a Grape Cup, Collared Urn 
and bronze riveted blade (Longworth 1984, 286; 
Kinnes 1994, A27) and Roundway 5b (Annable and 
Simpson 1964, no. 285; Green 1980, 340). 

18. In 2001 two Beaker burial pits (adult male and child 
inhumations respectively) were excavated within 
about 10 metres north of Wilsford 1. The associated 
pottery (information Andrew Lawson, Rosamund 
Cleal) appears to be similar to that from the barrow. 

19. Although they may not have been intended to have 
been visible from the monument (Cleal in Cleal er al. 
1995, 490). Nearby, Amesbury 15 lies close to this 
alignment and was probably visible, but I take it to 
have been a later development. 

20. Evidence for other potentially early Beaker activity 
(including Shrewton 5k) lies north of the monument 
and generally at greater distance (Case 1995a, 4) and 
note Upton Lovell 2c (Annable and Simpson 1964, 
no. 98); but I have suggested that rich burials (such 
as that recently excavated at Boscombe Down, p. 186) 
may also lurk nearby as primary burials beneath 
Wessex Series barrows (Case 1997, 166) such as 
Wilsford 5 (a specific suggestion I owe to Derek 
Simpson) or even Wilsford 7. The primary 
inhumations at Weymouth 8 and Winterbourne 
Monkton 31 might also have been Beaker-period 
burials. 


189 


21. But note continuation of early traditions in Wilsford 
16 east with ribbed beads (Fig. 6, nos 19 and 20; 
Annable and Simpson 1984, no. 308, 309, ?non-jet) 
comparable to those in Wilsford 7 (Fig. 6, no. 14; op. 
cit., no. 147, ?jet or non-jet) and Preshute 1a (Fig. 6, 
no. 11; op. cit., no. 197, lignite). 

. Both outdoors and indoors. Efficient architecture 
seems implied by the delicate work as seen for example 
in the gold rivet-pins at Wilsford 5, with craftsmen 
able to work on stable surfaces, under dust-free 
conditions, in good light and still air. 

23. The source of the amber from Little Cressingham 
itself is unfortunately unidentifiable but the remainder 
from the Core and Sub-groups has been identified as 
of Baltic origin, presumably washed up on the east 
coast of Britain (Beck and Shennan 1991, 33-5). 

24. Note a bronze axe identified as of Breton Barrow 
Grave type found nearby (Gardiner 1987, 59, fig. 
Ill, 43). 

25. Barrows of mass equivalent to exceptionally large locai 
examples such as Wilsford 5 (requiring about 10,500 
man-hours earth moving: Startin in Case and Whittle 
1982, 155), Winterbourne Stoke 4 and 5 and 
Amesbury 45 (Fig. 3A) are not uncommon in 
Brittany, and these Wiltshire examples fall short of 
exceptional Breton ones such as Plouvorn or St. 
Fiacre or central European Leubingen or Helmsdorf. 


bo 
bo 


THE CONSERVATION OF 
A BRONZE AGE 
COLLARED URN FROM 
WILSFORD BARROW 7 

by Alison Hopper-Bishop 


The Urn was received for conservation by the 
Wiltshire County Council Conservation Centre in 
1989 to prepare it for display in the new Bronze 
Age galleries at Devizes Museum. The treatment, 
undertaken over a four-month period as part of a 
post-graduate internship in early 1990, took 185 
hours. 

Excavated at the beginning of the 19th century, 
the Urn had been restored by the excavator William 
Cunnington, shortly after excavation. Our 
conservation revealed two stages in this earlier 
restoration: an initial reconstruction followed by a 
further phase of treatment possibly to strengthen 
the original work. This second phase was visible in 
the form of an exceptionally hard, cement-like layer 
covering much of the interior of the vessel. Initial 
examination in the conservation laboratory revealed 


190 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


a robust and stable fabric. However, it was apparent 
that the two phases of restoration were becoming 
increasingly unstable. 

The Urn had been reconstructed from many 
fragments. All of the joins and cracks as well as 
missing areas were filled with an exceptionally hard 
gap-filling material that varied in colour from pale 
yellow-brown to much darker, dirty yellow-brown. 
The joins were visibly weakening, with some small 
cracks appearing along their length. The shape of 
the vessel had slumped somewhat out of alignment 
following reconstruction - perhaps explaining the 
necessity for the internal cement-like layer. In 
general the gap-fills were very poorly shaped, not 
at all sympathetic to the external profile of the vessel. 
In many places the fill material was smeared 
extensively over the surface of the sherds. In 
addition, the interior of the vessel was almost 
completely obscured by the grey cement-like 
substance. During later cleaning it was discovered 
that the interior of the vessel, where gap-fills were 
needed, had been lined with a layer of thin card; 
the cement-like substance was applied over the top 
of the lining. The base of the vessel had also been 
made up on one side with layers of thin card and 
water-soluble adhesive, apparently so that the vessel 
would stand level following reconstruction. 

There was no sign of any adhesive along or 
around any of the joins; it was suspected that the 
gap-filling material had also been used as an 
adhesive which joined all the sherds together 

In addition to the hard fill materials, there were 
deposits of a softer, grey-white material (probably 
gypsum) covering many areas of the exterior and 
rim. 

There were patches of a pale orange paint 
covering both gap-fills and original surface, and the 
entire vessel was covered with a thick layer of dust. 
Almost every sherd exhibited dark, oily or waxy 
staining extending a few millimetres from break 
edges towards the centre of the sherd. The staining 
was most severe along those edges abutting the gap- 
filling material. Apart from its structural instability, 
both the shape and the appearance of the Urn were 
entirely compromised by the deterioration that 
occurred since the early reconstructions were 
carried out. 

Although the surviving restoration was a 
fascinating example of early conservation 
techniques, it was considered that in this case the 
long term stability and visual appearance of the 
vessel were of prime importance. It was therefore 
agreed that, once a careful photographic record had 


been made and series of samples taken of all gap- 
filling materials and tests made on them, the vessel 
would be dismantled, cleaned, and reconstructed 
according to current conservation practice. These 
procedures are summarised below. Full details are 
deposited in the archives of the Museum of the 
WANHS at Devizes. 


Tests and Disassembly 
The orange overpaint was dispersed and easily 
removed when a dampened cotton wool swab was 
rolled across the surface. 

No trace of any adhesive was found where 
samples of the gap filling material were removed 
for tests, confirming suspicions that this material 
had been strong and of sufficient tack to double as 
an adhesive. Analysis by Raymond White of the 
National Gallery confirmed it to be a linseed-oil 
based putty, thus explaining the oily stains around 
the broken edges of the sherds. 

This gap filling/adhesive was harder in texture 
than the ceramic body of the vessel and therefore 
impossible to remove mechanically, particularly 
between joins, without risk or damage to the vessel. 
A method was therefore developed to deliver a 
controlled level of moisture to the vessel, which 
would soften the degraded putty sufficiently to 
allow the sherds to be taken apart whilst at the 
same time supporting the vessel so that it did not 
collapse. 

During dismantling it became clear that the 
joins were very wide apart and the original 
completed reconstruction distorted in shape. 
Several intriguing anomalies appeared as the vessel 
was dismantled. A number of sherds had not been 
positioned correctly, even though they were a part 
of the vessel. Usually these sherds were ‘floating’ in 
the putty matrix. More curious was the discovery 
of a decorated sherd (Fig. 1, no. 1) in a particularly 
distorted section of the rim of the vessel which did 
not belong to the vessel at all, being of both different 
pattern and fabric. 


Reassembly 

After cleaning sherd by sherd, the vessel was 
reassembled using ethyl methacrylate co-polymer 
adhesive. Contrary to expectations, bearing in mind 
the previous reconstruction method, the sherds 
‘keyed’ together very well (Pl. 1A and B). Finally, 
gaps were filled with plaster of Paris (calcium 
sulphate) tinted with acrylic colours, and with the 
impressed decoration reproduced with a plaster 
modelling tool. 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 
Bibliography 


ABERCROMBY, J., 1907, The Relative Chronology of 
some Cinerary Urn types of Great Britain and Ireland. 
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 
41, 185-274 

ALLEN, M.J., 1997, ‘Environment and Land-use: The 
Economic Development of the Communities who 
built Stonehenge (An Economy to support the 
Stones)’, in B. W. Cunliffe and A. C. Renfrew, 1997 
(eds), Science and Stonehenge, 115-144. London: 
Proceedings of the British Academy 92 

ALLEN, M.J.,and GREEN, M., 1998, The Fir Tree Field 
Shaft: the date and archaeological and palaeo- 
environmental potential of a chalk swallowhole 
feature. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History 
and Archaeological Society 120, 25-38 

ALLEN, C., and HOPKINS, D., 2000, Early Bronze Age 
Accessory Cups from Lincolnshire: Early Bronze Age 
Pot?. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 297 
- 317 

ALLEN, T.G., DARVILL, T.C., GREEN, L.S., and 
JONES, M.U., 1982, Excavations at Roughground 
Farm, Lechlade, Gloucestershire; a prehistoric and 
Roman landscape. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological Unit 

ANNABLE, F.K., and SIMPSON, D.D.A., 1964, A 
Guide Catalogue of he Neolithic and Bronze Age 
Collections in Devizes Museum. Devizes: WANHS 

ApSIMON, A.M., 1954, Dagger graves in the Wessex 
Bronze Age. University of London Institute of 
Archaeology Annual Report 10, 37-62 

ASHBEE, P., 1960, The Bronze Age Round Barrow in 

Britain. London: Phoenix House 

ASHBEE, P., 1975/6, Amesbury barrow 51: Excavation 
1960. WANHM 70/71, 1-60 

ASHBEE, P., 1981, Amesbury barrow 39: Excavation 
1960. WANHM 74/75, 3-34 

BAILLY, M., and SALANOVA, L., 1998, Les dates 
radiocarbones du Campaniforme en Europe 
occidentale: analyse critique des principales séries de 
dates. Actes du Colloque “C 14 Archéologie”. 
Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Frang¢aise 26, 
219-224 

BARCLAY, A., and HALPIN, C., 1999, Excavations at 
Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. Volume 1: The 
Neolithic and Bronze Monument Complex. Oxford: 
Oxford Archaeological Unit 

BARFIELD, L.H., 1991, Wessex with and without 
Mycenae; new evidence from Switzerland. Antiquity 
65, 102-107 

BARTON, T., 1852, Antiquities discovered at Little 
Cressingham, Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology 3, 1-2 

BECK, C., and SHENNAN, S., 1991, Amber in 
prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

_ BECKER, B., KRAUSE, R., and KROMER, B., 1989, 
Zur absolute Chronologie der frihen Bronzezeit. 
Germania 67(2), 421-442 

BILLARD, C., BLANCHET, J-C., and TALON, M., 


191 


1992, Origines at composantes de |’ Age du Bronze 
dans le nord-ouest de la France. 117e Congr. Nat. 
Soc. Hist. Scient. (Clermont Ferrand), 579 - 601 

BRANIGAN, K., 1970, Wessex and Mycenae: Some 
evidence reviewed. WANHM 65, 89-107 

BRIARD, J., 1984, Les Tumulus d’ Armorique. Paris: 
Picard 

BROWN, N., 1995, ‘Ardleigh reconsidered: Deverel 
Rimbury pottery in Essex’, in I. A. Kinnes and G. 
Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: 
Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 
123-144. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

BRUNN, W.A. von, 1959, Die Hortfunde der friihen 
Bronzezeit aus Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen und 
Thuringen. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft zu 
Berlin, Bd. 7 

BUDD, P., EVANS, J., and CHENERY, C., 2002, 
‘Locating the early childhood residence of the 
Individual’, in M. Pitts, An Anglo-Saxon decapitation 
and burial at Stonehenge, WANHM 95, 137-9 

BURGESS, C., 1986, ‘Urnes of no small variety’: 
Collared Urns reviewed. Proceedings of the 
Prehistoric Society 52, 339-351 

BUSHE FOX, J.P., 1915, Excavations at Hengistbury 
Head, Hampshire in 1911 - 12. London: Society of 
Antiquaries, Research Committee Report III 

BUTTERWORTH, C.A., 1992, Excavations at Norton 
Bavant Borrow Pit, Wiltshire, 1987. WANHM 85, 
1-26 

CASE, H.J., 1956/7, The Lambourn Seven Barrows, 
Berkshire. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 55, 15- 
31 

CASE, H.J., 1966, Were Beaker-people the first 
metallurgists in Ireland? Palaeohistoria 12, 141-177 

CASE, H.J., 1977, ‘An early accession to the Ashmolean 
Museum’, in V. Markotic (ed), Ancient Europe and 
the Mediterranean: studies presented in honour of 
Hugh Hencken, 18-34.Warminster: Aris and Phillips 

CASE, H.J., 1993, Beakers: Deconstruction and After. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 241-268 

CASE, H.J., 1995a, Some Wiltshire Beakers and their 
Contexts. WANHM 838, 1-17 

CASE, H.J., 1995b, ‘Irish Beakers in their European 
Context’, in J. Waddell and E. Shee Twohig (eds), 
Ireland in the Bronze Age, 14-29. Dublin: 
Government Publications Office 

CASE, H.J., 1995c, ‘Beakers: loosening a stereotype’, in 
I. A. Kinnes and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns 
of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery 
for Ian Longworth, 55-67. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

CASE, H.J., 1997, Stonehenge Revisited. WANHM 90, 
161-168 

CASE, H.J., 2001, ‘The Beaker Culture in Britain and 
Ireland: Groups, European Contacts and 
Chronology’, in F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers Today: 
Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric 
Europe, 361-377. Trento 

CASE, H.]J., in press, a, ‘Beaker burial in Britain and 


192 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Ireland’, in Symposium Les Seépultures du 
Neolithique Final et des Bronze ancien, 2700-2000 
av. J.C., Sion, Valais, 2001 

CASE, H.J., in press, b, ‘Beakers and the Beaker Culture’, 
in Symposium on the Northeast Frontier of Bell 
Beakers. Poznan 2002 

CASE, H.J., and WHITTLE, A.W.R., 1982, Settlement 
patterns in the Oxford Region: excavations at the 
Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites. 
London: CBA Research Report 44 

CHRISTIE, P.M., 1967, A Barrow-Cemetery of the 
Second Millennium B.C. in Wiltshire, England. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 336-366 

CLARKE, D., 1970, Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and 
Ireland, volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press 

CLARKE, D.V., COWIE, T.G., and FOXON, A., 1985, 
Symbols of Power at the time of Stonehenge. 
Edinburgh: HMSO 

CLARKE, R.R., 1960, East Anglia. London: Thames and 
Hudson 

CLEAL, R.M.J., 1995, ‘Pottery fabrics in Wessex in the 
fourth to second millennia BC’, in I. A. Kinnes and 
G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: 
Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 
185-194. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

CLEAL, R.M.J., and ALLEN, M.J., 1994, Investigation 
of Tree-damaged Barrows on King Barrow Ridge and 
Luxenborough Plantation, Amesbury. WANHM 87, 
54-84 

CLEAL, R.M.J., WALKER, K.E., and MONTAGUE, 
R., 1995, Stonehenge in its landscape: Twentieth- 
century excavations. London: English Heritage, 
Archaeological Report 10 

COGHLAN, H.H. and CASE, H.J., 1957, Early 
Metallurgy of Copper in Ireland and Britain. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 23, 91-123 

COLES, J.M., 1968/9, Scottish Early Bronze Age 
Metalwork. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 
of Scotland 101, 1-110 

COLES, J.M. and HARDING, A.F., 1979, The Bronze 
Age in Europe: An Introduction to the Prehistory of 
Europe c.2000 - 700 B.C. London : Methuen 

COLES, J. and TAYLOR, J., 1971, The Wessex Culture: 
a minimal view. Antiquity 45, 6-14 

CUNNINGTON, M.E., 1907, Notes on the opening of 
a Bronze Age barrow at Manton, near Marlborough. 
WANHM 35, 1-20 

CUNNINGTON,W., 1806a, Account of Tumuli opened 
in Wiltshire, in three letters from Mr. William 
Cunnington to Aylmer Bourke Lambert, Esq. F.R.S. 
and F.A.S. communicated by Mr. Lambert. 
Archaeologia 15, 122-9 

CUNNINGTON,W., 1806b, Further Account of Tumuli 
opened in Wiltshire, in a letter from Mr. William 
Cunnington F.A.S. to Aylmer Bourke Lambert, Esq. 
FE.R.S., FA.S. and F.L.S. communicated by Mr. 
Lambert. Archaeologia 15, 338-46 


CUNNINGTON, W. and GODDARD, E.H., 1896, 
Catalogue of Antiquities in the Museum of the 
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — 
at Devizes. Part I: The Stourhead Collection. Devizes 

DARVILL,T., 1997, ‘Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred 
Geographies of Stonehenge in its Landscape’, in B. 
W. Cunliffe and A. C. Renfrew (eds), Science and 
Stonehenge, 167-202. London: Proceedings of the 
British Academy 92 

DAVIS, S. and PAYNE, S., 1993, A barrow full of cattle 
skulls. Antiquity 67, 12-22 

ELUERE, C., 1982, Les Ors Préhistoriques. Paris: Picard 

FIELD, E.V., 1961, Excavation and fieldwork in Wiltshire, 
1960, South Wilsford. WANHM 58, 30-31 

GARDIN, C. du, 1998, Le Campaniforme et de l’ambre: 
mythe ou réalite? Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique 
Frangaise 95, 343-350 

GARDINER, J., 1987, in B. W. Cunliffe, Hengistbury 
Head, Dorset, vol. I: The Prehistoric and Roman 
Settlement, 3500 BC - AD 500. Oxford: Committee 
for Archaeology 

GARRIDO-PENA, R., 2000, El Campaniforme en la 
Meseta Central de Ja Péninsula Ibérica (c. 2500-2000 
AC). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 
International Series 892 

GARWOOD, P., 1999, “The chronology of depositional 
contexts and monuments’, in A. Barclay and C. 
Halpin (eds), Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, 
Oxfordshire. Volume 1: The Neolithic and Bronze 
Monument Complex, 275-309. Oxford: Oxford 
Archaeological Unit 

GERLOFF, S., 1975, The Early Bronze Daggers in Great 
Britain: and a Reconsideration of the Wessex Culture. 
Munich: Prahistorische Bronzefunde Ab.VI, Bd. 2 

GERLOFF, S., 1993, Zu Fragen mittelmeerlandischer 
Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der 
Frihbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa. 
Prahistorische Zeitschrift 68, 58-102 

GERLOFF, S., 1996, ‘Wessex, Mycenae and related 
matters: the Chronology of the British Bronze Age in 
its European Setting’, in R. Peroni, M. Novotna and 
B. Novotny (eds), Section II, Colloquium XX, 11- 
19. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and 
Protohistoric Sciences, Forli, Italy 

GIBSON, A., and KINNES, I.A., 1997, On the Urns of 
a Dilemma: Radiocarbon and the Peterborough 
Problem. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(1), 65- 
72 

GREEN, H.S., 1980, The Flint Arrowheads of the British 
Isles. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British 
Series 75, 1-1 

GREEN, C., and ROLLO-SMITH, S., 1984, The 
excavation of eighteen Round Barrows near Shrewton, 
Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 
255-318 

GREIG, M.K., GREIG, C., SHEPHERD, A.N., and 
SHEPHERD, I.A.G., 1989, A Beaker cist from 
Chapelden, Tore of Troup, Aberdour, Banff and 


BEAKER PRESENCE AT WILSFORD 7 


Buchan District, with a note on the orientation of 
beaker burials on north-east Scotland. Proceedings 
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 119, 73-81 

GRIMES, W.F., 1938, A barrow on Breach Farm, 
Llanbleddian, Glamorgan. Proceedings of the 
Prehistoric Society 4, 107-121 

GRINSELL, L.V., 1957, ‘Corpus of Wiltshire barrows’, 
in R.B. Pugh (ed), A History of Wiltshire I, part 1, 
134-246. London: Institute of Historical Research 
(Victoria History of the Counties of England) 

GRINSELL, L. V., 1959, Dorset Barrows. Dorchester: 
Longmans 

GROSS-KLEE, E., 1999, Glockenbecher: ihre 
Chronologie und ihre Verhaltnis zur Schnurkeramik 
aufgrund C14—Daten. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen 
Gesellschaft fir Ur - and Frtthgeschichte 82, 55-61 

HARBISON, P., 1969a, The Daggers and Halberds of 
the Early Bronze Age in Ireland. Munich: 
Prahistorische Bronzefunde, Ab. VI, Bd. 1 

HARBISON, P., 1969b, The Axes of the Early Bronze 
Age in Ireland. Munich: Prahistorische Bronzefunde, 
Ab. IX, Bd. 1 

HARDING, A.F., 1984, The Mycenaeans and Europe. 
London: Academic Press 

HARDING, A.F., 1993, ‘British amber spacer-plate 
necklaces and their relatives in gold and stone’, in 
C.W. Beck and J.Bouzek (eds), Amber in Archaeology, 
53-58. Prague: Institute of Archaeology 

HARDING, A.F., 2000, European Societies in the Bronze 
Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

HARRISON, R., 1974, A closed find from Canada Rosal, 
Prov. Sevilla and two Bell Beakers. Madrider 
Mitteilungen 15, 77-94 

HAUGHTON, C. and POWLESLAND, D., 1999, West 
Heslerton: the Anglian Cemetery, vol. 1.Yedingham: 
Landscape Research Centre 

HAWKES, J., 1939, The Archaeology of the Channel 
Islands, volume II: The Balliwick of Jersey. Jersey: 
Société Jersiaise 

HEATON, M., and CLEAL, R.M.J., 2000, Beaker Pits 
at Crescent Copse, near Shrewton, Wiltshire, and the 
Effects of Arboreal Fungi on Archaeological Remains. 
WANHM 93, 71-81 

HEALY, F., 1995, ‘Pots, pits and peat: ceramics and 
settlement in East Anglia’, in I.A. Kinnes and G. 
Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: 
Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian Longworth, 
173-184. Oxford: Oxbow Books 173-184 

HOARE, R.C., 1812, The Ancient History of South 
Wiltshire. London: Miller 

HUGHES, G., 2000. The Lockington Gold Hoard: an 
Early Bronze Age cemetery at Lockington, 
Leicestershire. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

JOUSSAUME, R., 1981. Le Néolithique de l’Aunis et 
du Poitou occidentale dans son cadre atlantique. 
Rennes: Equipe de récherche du C.N.R.S., no. 27 

KINNES, I.A., 1985, 1994, British Bronze Age 
Metalwork, A7-Al6, A17-A30: Beaker and Early 


193 


Bronze Grave Groups. London: British Museum 

KINNES, I.A., and LONGWORTH, I.H., 1985, 
Catalogue of the Excavated Prehistoric and Romano- 
British Material in the Greenwell Collection. London: 
British Museum 

KRAUSE, R., 1988, Die endneolithischen und 
frihbronzezeitliche Grabfunde auf der 
Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. 
Stuttgart: Forschungen und Berichten zur Vor- und 
Frugeschichte in Baden-Wurtemburg, Bd. 32 

LEMERCIER, O., 1997/98, Le Campaniforme dans la 
moyenne et basse vallée du Rhone. Archéologia 1997/ 
98, 30-35 . 

LHELGOUACH, J., 2001, ‘Le cadre culturel du 
campaniforme armoricain’, in F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell 
Beakers Today: Pottery, people, culture, symbols in 
prehistoric Europe, 289-299. Trento 

LONGWORTH, I.H., 1984, The Collared Urns of the 
Bronze Age in Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press 

MORTIMER, J.R., 1905, Forty Years Researches in 
British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire. 
London: Brown 

MULLER, J., 1999, Zur Radiokarbondatierung des Jung- 
bis Endneolithikums und der Frthbronzezeit im 
Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100 - 1500 v. Chr.). Bericht 
der Romisch - Germanischen Kommiussion 80, 31-90 

NEEDHAM, S.P., 1996, Chronology and Periodisation 
in the British Bronze Age. Acta Archaeologica 67, 
121-140 

NEEDHAM, S.P., 2000a, The Development of 
Embossed Goldwork in Bronze Age Europe. 
Antiquaries Journal 80, 27-65 

NEEDHAM, S.P., 2000b, Power Pulses across a Cultural 
Divide: Cosmologically Driven Acquisition between 
Armorica and Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric 
Society 66, 151-207 

O’BRIEN, W., 2001, ‘New light on Beaker Metallurgy in 
Ireland’, in F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers Today: 
Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric 
Europe, 561-576. Trento 

O RIORDAIN, S.P., 1937, The Halberd in Bronze Age 
Europe: A Study in Prehistoric Origins, Evolution, 
Distribution and Chronology. Archaeologia 86, 195- 
321 

O RIORDAIN, B., and WADDELL, J., 1993, The 
Funerary Bowls and Vases of the Irish Bronze Age. 
Dublin: National Museum of Ireland and Galway 
University Press 

OTTO, H., and WITTER, W., 1952, Handbuch der 
4ltesten vorgeschichliche Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa. 
Leipzig: Barth 

PARRINGTON, M., The excavation of an Iron Age 
settlement, Bronze Age ring-ditches and Roman 
features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon, 
Oxfordshire, 1974-76. Oxford: Oxford Archaeological 
Unit 

PIGGOTT, S., 1938, The Early Bronze Age in Wessex. 


194 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 52-106 

PIGGOTT, S., and STEWART, M., 1958, The Migdale 
Hoard, Sutherland. Inventaria Archaeologica GB 26 

POLLARD, A.M., BUSSELL, G.D., and BAIRD, D.C., 
1981, The analytical investigation of Early Bronze Age 
jet and jet-like material in Devizes Museum. 
Archaeometry 23, 139-167 

RAWLINGS, M., and FITZPATRICK, A.P., 1996, 
Prehistoric Sites and a Romano-British Settlement 
at Butterfield Down, Amesbury’, WANHM 839, 1-43 

RCHME, 1979, Stonehenge and its Environs. Edinburgh: 
Edinburgh University Press 

RICHARDS, J., 1990, The Stonehenge Environs Project. 
London: English Heritage, Archaeological Report 16 

ROBERTSON-MACKAY, M.E., 1980, A ‘head and 
hoofs’ burial beneath a round barrow, with other 
Neolithic and Bronze Age sites on Hemp Knoll, near 
Avebury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric 
Society 46, 123-176 

ROE, F.E.S., 1966, The Battle-Axe Series in Britain. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 199-245 

SALANOVA, L., 2000, La question du Campaniforme 
en France et dans les iles anglo-normandes. Paris: 
Societe Préhistorique Frang¢aise 

SCHOKNECHYT, U., 1971, Ein neuer Hortfund von 
Melz, Kr. Rébel, and die mecklenburgischen 
Stabdolche. Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflege in 
Mecklenburg, 233-253 

SHENNAN, S., 1993, ‘Amber and its value on the British 
Bronze Age’, in C.W. Beck and J. Bouzek (eds), Amber 
and Archaeology. Prague: Institute of Archaeology 

SHEPHERD, I.A.G., 1985, ‘Jet and amber’, in Clarke et 
al., 1985, 204-216 

SHEPHERD, I.A.G., 1986, Powerful Pots: Beakers in 
north-east prehistory. Aberdeen: Anthropological 
Museum, University of Aberdeen 

SHEPHERD, I.A.G., and BRUCE, M.F., 1987, Two 
Beaker cists at Keabog, Pitrichie, near Drumlithie, 
Kincardine and Teeside. Proceedings of the Society 
of Antiquaries of Scotland 117, 33-40 

SHERIDAN, A., 2002, The radiocarbon dating 
programmes of the National Museum of Scotland. 
Antiquity 76, 794-6 

SMITH, I.F., 1991, Round barrows Wilsford-cum-Lake 
G51 - G54: Excavations by Ernest Greenfield in 1958. 
WANHM 84, 11-39 

SMITH, I.F., and SIMPSON, D.D.A., 1966, Excavation 
of a Round Barrow on Overton Hill, North Wiltshire. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 122-155 

SMITH, R.J.C., HEALY, F., ALLEN, M.J., MORRIS, 
E.L., BARNES, I., and WOODWARD, P.J., 1997, 
Excavations along the Route of the Dorchester By- 


pass, Dorset, 1968. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology, 
Report 11 

SWEETMAN, P.D., 1976, An earthen enclosure at 
Monknewton, Slane, Co. Meath. Proceedings of the 
Royal Irish Academy 76C, 25-72 

TAYLOR, J.J., 1970, Lunulae reconsidered. Proceedings 
of the Prehistoric Society 36, 38-81 

TAYLOR, J.J., 1980, Bronze Age Goldwork of the British 
Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

TAYLOR, J.J., 1999, ‘Gold Reflections’, in A.F. Harding 
(ed.), Archaeological Studies in honour of John Coles, 
108 - 115. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

THURNAM, J., 1871, On British Barrows, especially 
those of Wiltshire and the adjoining Counties. Part 
II: Round Barrows. Archaeologia 43, 285-544 

TOMALIN, D.J., 1988, Armorican Vases a anses and 
their occurrence in Southern England. Proceedings 
of the Prehistoric Society 54, 203-221 

TUCKWELL, A., 1975, Patterns of burial orientation in 
the round barrows of east Yorkshire. Bulletin of the 
Institute of Archaeology, University of London 12, 
95-123 

WAINWRIGHT, G.J., 1979, Mount Pleasant, Dorset: 
Excavations 1970-1971. London: Society of 
Antiquaries, Research Report 37 

WATTS, S., POLLARD, A.M. and WOLFF, G.A., 1997, 
Kimmeridge jet - a potential new source for British 
jet. Archaeometry 39, 125-143 

WHITTLE, A., 1997, ‘Remembered and Imagined 
Belongings: Stonehenge in its Traditions and 
Structures of Meaning’, in B.W. Cunliffe and A.C. 
Renfrew (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 145-166. 
London: Proceedings of the British Academy 92 

WHITTLE, A., ATKINSON, R.J.C., CHAMBERS, R. 
and THOMAS, N., 1992, Excavations in the 
Neolithic and Bronze Age Complex at Dorchester- 
on-Thames, Oxfordshire , 1947-1952 and 1981. 
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 143-201 

WHITTLE, A., POLLARD, J., and GRIGSON, C., 
1999, The Harmony of Symbols: the Windmill Hill 
causewayed enclosure. Oxford: Oxbow Books 

WIERMANN, R. R., 1998, ‘An anthropological approach 
to burial customs of the Corded Ware Culture in 
Bohemia’, in M. Benz and S. van Willingen (eds), Some 
New Approaches to the Bell Beaker ‘Phenomenom’. 
Lost Paradise?, 129-140. Oxford: British 
Archaeological Reports, International Series 690 

WOODWARD, A., 1995, ‘Vessel size and social identity 
in the Bronze Age of Southern Britain’, in I.A. Kinnes 
and G. Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely 
Shape’: Essays on British and Irish pottery for Ian 
Longworth, 195-202. Oxford: Oxbow Books 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 195-205 


‘A Family Chapel. . . to an Archdruid’s 
Dwelling’: an investigation into the stone circle 


at Winterbourne Bassett, Wiltshire 


by Andrew David', David Field’, Joerg Fassbinder’, Neil 
Linford, Paul Linford and Andrew Payne 


A recent geophysical survey and re-assessment of field-drawings made in the early 18th century by William 
Stukeley suggest that the currently accepted, and scheduled, location of the Winterbourne Bassett stone 
circle must now be considered 1n doubt. That such a monument once existed seems highly probable, but its 
identification with a scatter of stones at Upper Oxleaze may well be erroneous — these being part of a 
naturally-occurring distribution without any deliberate patterning. It seems more likely that the circle in 
fact once lay to the south of a lane leading to Clyffe Pypard. 


INTRODUCTION 


The giant henge and stone circles of Avebury, and 
its neighbouring monuments, have tended to dwarf 
interest in a number of subsidiary sites in northern 
Wiltshire where there are records or remains of large 
sarsens that have been interpreted as parts of former 
stone circles (Burl 2000, 310-311). The examples 
near Avebury include Falkner’s Circle, of which only 
one stone remains, and two lost sites at Clatford 
and Langdean. A fourth example, with an 
apparently more secure antiquarian pedigree, and 
with several surviving but fallen stones, is located 
near the village of Winterbourne Bassett, a few miles 
to the north of Avebury. That these sites are indeed 
those of stone circles has become something of an 
ingrained assumption, even if the field evidence is 
thin or non-existent. Clearly, it would be helpful to 
re-examine both the antiquarian evidence and the 
surviving physical evidence to try and locate and 
characterise these sites definitively, so that they can 
- be more fully considered within the wider context 


of the Avebury landscape in the second and third 
millennia BC (Cleal and Montague 2001). Such 
efforts are best directed at sites where the evidence 
is most compelling, that is where surviving stones 
coincide, or seem to coincide, with the original 
antiquarian evidence. At the time of writing, the 
site of Falkner’s Circle is under detailed field 
investigation following geophysical survey in 2002 
(Gillings er al. forthcoming). Here, we report upon 
geophysical and documentary re-investigation of the 
Winterbourne Bassett site, undertaken since 1998. 


HISTORY 


The stone circle at Winterbourne Bassett, Kennet, 
Wiltshire, has always been something of an enigma. 
It is placed by the Ordnance Survey Archaeological 
Division and by the National Monument Record 
at NGR SU 0936 7552 to the west of the village on 
a north-facing slope alongside a small stream, a 
tributary of the Kennet known as the Lambourne. 
This is acommon name on the chalk and not to be 


! (David, Linford, Linford and Payne) English Heritage, Fort Cumberland, Eastney, Portsmouth, PO4 9LD. ? English Heritage, 
National Monuments Record Centre, Kemble Drive, Swindon, SN2 2GZ. * Bavarian State Department of Historical Monuments 


196 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


confused with its namesake below Windmill Hill or 
a little further east with the Lambourn Downs. Early 
maps indicate that the area was formerly known as 
Winterbourne Bassett Common but that the 
meadow containing the site, Upper Oxleaze, had 
been enclosed by at least 1773 while the 
commonland immediately to the south had been 
incorporated into the Manor of Rabson and 
cultivated by 1840 (Crittall 1952: British Library 
MT 6.1(1) — A survey of Winterbourne, Rapson, 
Richardson, Upper Richardson alias Whyr, 
Summers’s Hanh alias Trotman’s Farms 1760: 
WSRO TA/ Winterbourne Bassett). 

The circles were first recorded by Stukeley in 
his Abury. He relates that: 


At Winterbourne Bassett, a little north of Abury, in a 
field north west of the Church, upon elevated ground, 
is a double circle of stones concentric, sixty cubits 
diameter. The two circles are near one another, so 
that one may walk between. Many stones have of late 
been carry’d away. West of it is a single, broad, flat, 
and high stone, standing by itself. And about as far 
northward from the circle, in a ploughed field, is a 
barrow set round with or rather composed of large 
stones. I take this double circle to have been a family- 
chapel, as we may call it, to an archdruid dwelling 
near thereabouts, whilst Abury was his Cathedral. 
(Stukeley 1743, 45) 


The site was evidently forgotten, and its position 
not marked on Andrews and Dury’s Map of 
Wiltshire of 1773 (Crittall 1952), but investigated 
by Hoare in preparation for the second volume of 
his Ancient Wiltshire. Using Stukeley’s description, 
Hoare traced the site to the valley slopes of the 
Lambourne to the west of the village: ‘By the above 
description I was enabled to find the remains of 
this circle, which is situated in a pasture ground at 
an angle of a road leading to Broad Hinton, and 
consists at present only of a few inconsiderable 
stones’ (Hoare 1821, 95). Hoare’s map depicts the 
position of the site adjacent to the junction of the 
Winterbourne Bassett to Clyffe Pypard and Broad 
Hinton toYatesbury roads (at NGR SU 0936 7552), 
the latter now for most of its course a Green Lane. 
This is the position subsequently adopted by the 
Ordnance Survey. 

By the first half of the 18th century the locals 
were apparently already in the process of 
dismantling the circle and many stones had been 
‘carry’d away’ (Stukeley 1743, 45). Use of the local 
naturally occurring sarsen for construction 
purposes was widespread in the villages situated 


alongside the winterbournes feeding the Kennet. 
For example, when the chancel and nave of the 
church of St Katherine and St Peter, Winterbourne 
Bassett, were re-built during the 14th century 
(Freeman 1983, 192) it was in sarsen. A number of 
houses in Winterbourne Bassett, including the 
substantial Rabson Manor, were constructed of 
sarsen in the 17th century (ibid, 185, 188) and by 
the time of Hoare’s visit, some time before 1821, 
only a ‘few inconsiderable stones’ remained of what 
he considered to be the circle. Unusually, Hoare 
did not elaborate and he described neither the 
number of stones present nor their position or form. 
Neither did he provide an illustration. The 
impression is that so few stones remained that the 
circle could not be reconstructed. 

When A.C. Smith first encountered the site in 
about 1880 he indicated that there was ‘no trace of 
a circle, and only three or four stones lying about 
to mark where the circle once stood’ (Smith 1884, 
76). In fact he recorded six stones lying on the 
surface and he set about probing for buried 
examples, discovering the position of nine others. 
He noted that the exercise was in fact so successful 
that he encountered fragments of broken sarsen at 
regular intervals which he thought pointed to the 
former location of stones since demolished (Smith 
1884). The Rev W.C. Lukis prepared a plan of the 
site in 1882 (Lukis 1883), discovering an additional 
stone in doing so, and this was published in Smith’s 
monograph in 1884. The plan (Figure 1) depicted 


| Ec 
1 


Fig. 1. Plan of the Winterbourne Bassett concentric 
circles as posited by A.C. Smith in 1884 


‘A FAMILY CHAPEL ...TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 197 


a loose grouping of stones interpreted by Smith as 
forming inner and outer concentric circles around 
a central stone. The inner circle incorporated five 
stones and attained a diameter of 148 ft. (45.1m), 
while the outer consisted of ten stones and 
measured 234 ft (71.3m) in diameter, although five 
stones in the north did not fit into the pattern. It is 
an interesting reflection upon the contemporary 
attitude to Stukeley’s records to note that Smith 
and Lukis, whilst using his account and Hoare’s 
subsequent assumption to locate the site, then 
largely ignore Stukeley’s description. Not only do 
they locate a central stone, seemingly not visible in 
1724, but they enlarged both circles well in excess 
of the maximum of 60 cubits diameter (approx. 
34m) that he noted. 

The Ordnance Survey Ist edition 25-inch map 
published in 1886 depicted eight stones and labelled 
them as the remains of a stone circle. To the north- 
west an isolated stone situated in the adjacent 
meadow, Lambourne Ground, was shown. A 
further stone was added to the site on the 1900 
edition. 

On the foregoing evidence the site was 
scheduled as an Ancient Monument (Wilts 24) in 
1924, the area so protected being the western 
portion of Upper Oxleaze (OS field number 4252), 
incorporating both the stones mapped by Smith 
and an outlying recumbent stone some 80m to the 
south-east which must have been deemed of related 
significance. The limits of the scheduled area (see 
Figure 2) were defined on its western and southern 
sides by the edges of the field, the remainder of the 
circuit curving across the field, around the stones. 
Other stones were apparent elsewhere in the field, 
to the north and north-east, as marked on the 
contemporary OS map, but these were ignored. 

When visited by the Ordnance Survey 
Archaeological Division in November 1972 Smith’s 
six stones were observed to be lying on the surface 
among ridge and furrow, the field not having been 
disturbed for a considerable period. The published 
survey was revised (although this is missing from 
the archive) and the stones measured by the OS 
Investigator. All were prone as they were in Smith’s 
day. None was large. 


Stone (Smith’s lettering) Height (m) Width (m) 
A Ground level 2.5 
B 0.5 1.6 
C 0.1 OM 
D 0.5 1.1 
E Ground level 1.6 
F 0.2 1.7 


The outlier described as west of the circle by 
Stukeley was suggested to be that shown on the 
1960 OS 6-inch map at NGR SU 09357563, 
although the OS investigator drew attention to the 
very large stone (referred to above) some 3.5 m 
across, lying recumbent to the south-east of the 
circle at NGR SU 09407545. Ten years later the 
English Heritage Field Monument Warden’s 
report states: “Five recumbent stones visible, four 
making up arc of circle, one inside the circle. All 
measure about 1m square. A sixth stone lies near 
the gate to the field to the north-west and may 
have been part of the monument’ (FH Site File 
AA/72392/1). 


THE GEOPHYSICAL 
SURVEYS 


The attention of the Ancient Mounuments 
Laboratory (AML) was initially drawn to the site 
as a possible target for geophysical survey by Ros 
Cleal and Becky Montague of the Alexander Keiller 
Museum, Avebury, and Chris Gingell, during a site 
visit with AML staff in May 1996. The subsequent 
decision to undertake fieldwork was at least partly 
inspired by the success of the survey of the stone 
circles at Stanton Drew in the following year (David 
1998; David et al. forthcoming). It seemed that the 
conditions at Winterbourne Bassett were rather 
similar and that there might be an opportunity here 
not only to confirm and amplify the antiquarian 
record, but perhaps to detect formerly unseen 
features such as post pits. The results would also 
inform the future management and conservation 
of the monument. That the site lay unobstructed in 
a large grassy field, with a potentially undisturbed 
magnetic background, were practical advantages; 
a visit to the site could also be timed to coincide 
with the availability of highly sensitive caestum 
magnetometer sensors in use by Dr Joerg 
Fassbinder as part of a wider collaboration with 
the Ancient Monuments Laboratory. 

The geophysical surveys were undertaken 
during 9-11 June 1998, and included magnetic 
survey, using both fluxgate gradiometers and total 
field caesium magnetometers, and earth resistance 
survey. The survey grid of 30m by 30m squares, 
and the differing coverage by these instruments is 
shown in Figure 2.The local geology is Lower Chalk 
(IGS 1974) overlain here by well-drained calcareous 
clayey/silty soils of the Blewbury Soil Association 
(SSEW 1983). 


198 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


| 


WINTERBOURNE BASSETT, WILTSHIRE. 
Geophysical surveys, June 1998. 


SU0975 


N 157 


756 


755 


7154 


093 094 


Magnetometer and earth 
resistance survey 

= : 

| Magnetometer survey only ee 


© Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved. 


[ 
Ba . 
Caesium magnetometer survey 


_ Approximate limit 
of scheduled area 


—7— Eee 9()m 


Fig. 2. Location of geophysical survey area, and the limit of the scheduled site 


The survey area covers 2.3ha of the western part 
of the field. All of this (grid squares 1-28) was 
surveyed initially with Geoscan FM36 
magnetometers, with a sampling interval of 1.0m x 
0.25m. A rather smaller area (1.68ha: grid squares 
6-24) was surveyed with a Geoscan RM15 resistivity 
meter, using the Twin Electrode (Twin Probe) 
configuration, with a mobile probe spacing of 0.5m, 


and a sampling interval of 1.0m x 1.0m. Operation 
of the caesium magnetometer was halted after 
coverage of a yet smaller area (0.76ha) on account 
of the very poor weather conditions then prevailing 
and the unexceptional magnetic response being 
obtained. The instrument used comprised a 
customised non-magnetic cart on which two 
Scintrex CS2 sensors were mounted horizontally 


‘A FAMILY CHAPEL .. 


Mee : nat 

ae 
fone 
we 


Br Ac 
AK 
ah one 


Sa 


nas 


Fig. 3. Greyscale image of fluxgate gradiometer data 


0.5m apart, providing a high resolution sampling 
interval of 0.5m x 0.25m. The heightened sensitivity 
of the CS2 sensors (+ .001nT) over that for the 
FM36 fluxgate sensors (+0.5nT) offered the 
opportunity of detecting very weakly magnetised 
features. The magnetometer surveys were part of a 
series then being conducted by the AML and Dr 
Joerg Fassbinder of the Bavarian State Department 
of Historical Monuments, in a project aimed at 
comparing the effectiveness of the two types of 
instrument on archaeological sites in England (Cole 
et al. 1999). 

The results of the magnetometer surveys were 
disappointing. The fluxgate data (Figures 3-4) 
demonstrates a generally very bland response 
across the entire survey area with most background 
variations scarcely exceeding +0.5 nT, and thus 
at the limit of the sensitivity of the instrument. 
There is a thin scatter of irrelevant ferrous 
responses across the field and along its margins 
where fencing has been detected. Although no 
obviously significant anomalies are apparent in the 
area of the presumed circles, there are a small 
number of discrete anomalies nearer the edges of 
the survey area. To the north-east, in grid squares 
4-5, are two anomalies (approx. 10nT), 15m apart, 
which measure about 2m in diameter and may 
represent buried pits (A and C on Figure 3). Of 
interest is the presence of an exposed sarsen 6- 
7m from the easternmost of these anomalies, and 
lying over 70m away from the presumed outermost 
stone circle. A third smaller pit-like anomaly 
(approx 1.0m diameter; 8 nT) lies about 20m to 
the south-west of the other two, in grid square 9 
(B on Figure 3). Near the western margin of the 
field, in grid square 11, are two further weakly 


. TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 199 


90m, 


Fig. 4. X-Y trace plot of fluxgate gradiometer data 


defined anomalies which may also be pit-like 
features (D and E on Figure 3). 

Coverage with the caesitum instrument, whilst 
more limited in area, overlapped the presumed 
location of the circles generously. Despite the 
increased sensitivity of the data, the lack of 


Fig. 5. Greyscale image of caesium magnetometer data 


200 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


apparently relevant magnetic anomalies in this area 
seems confirmed (Figure 5). The distribution of 
ferrous signals is accentuated, and the 
magnetometer has picked up the ridge and furrow 
running northeast-southwest across the site. The 
furrows are apparent as weak negative anomalies, 
which is unusual, and may result from a relatively 
high subsoil magnetic susceptibility, compared to 
that of the topsoil: measurements on samples of 
the latter from each grid intersection reveal very 
low values (average: 6.9 x 10° SI/kg), whilst a 
sample of subsoil gave a value of 14.5 x 10° SI/kg. 
If this relatively high value for the subsoil is typical 
of the site the reversed magnetic signal might be 
explained — the furrows being in-filled with low 
susceptibility material contrasting with a higher 
susceptibility subsoil at a shallow depth. 

The caesium magnetic data also show a slight 
linear negative magnetic anomaly, dog-legged, 
crossing the ridge and furrow in grid squares 11- 
13. Whilst difficult to explain, this anomaly may 
(by analogy with the interpretation of the ridge and 
furrow offered above) represent a broad and shallow 


ditch. It is very weakly defined, however, and does 
not convince as part of any possible prehistoric 
circular arrangement. Apart from this and the ridge 
and furrow, there is little else to remark upon in the 
data (the pit-like anomalies referred to above being 
outside the area of caesium magnetometer 
coverage). 

The earth resistance data are more revealing 
(Figure 6). Here the ridge and furrow is more 
prominent as a series of linear bands of alternating 
high and low resistance. More significantly, there 
are a large number of discrete high resistance 
anomalies of various sizes scattered about the plot. 
Careful re-scaling of A.C. Smith’s plan and 
comparison of this with the plot shows that at least 
seven of these match with buried stones located by 
probing 117 years earlier (Stones 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 
and 9 of Figure 1). Together with the presence of 
Smith’s stones A-F, still exposed at the surface, this 
represents a highly satisfactory correlation with the 
19th-century record. Where the resistance survey 
departs from the latter, however, is in its location 
of numerous additional high resistance anomalies 


AN 


J 165 1S40 1915 


Ohms 


Fig. 6. Greyscale image of earth resistance data 


‘A FAMILY CHAPEL. ..TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 201 


which must also be considered to be buried stones. 
Many of these (e.g. in grid squares 17 and 22) are 
of the same scale and magnitude as those previously 
identified by probing, but many others (e.g. in 
squares 8, 9, 13 and 19) are substantially larger and, 
taken together, their distribution extends well 
beyond the circles, and moreover seems to be 
random. Several of the larger anomalies, with 
dimensions of 5m or more, could represent very 
large buried sarsens, or perhaps groups of smaller 
stones. Although there are several larger anomalies 
near the road (grid squares 21, 23), there seems to 
be a rather greater concentration downslope 
towards the stream. Background resistance also 
increases in this area (grid squares 1-5, 8-10). The 
high resistance anomaly to the immediate south- 
east of the outlier in grid square 25 may represent 
an adjacent buried stone, but is more possibly the 
effect of localised poaching by cattle. 

Apart from the ridge and furrow, the most 
obvious artificial feature that has been detected by 
the resistance survey is indicated by a linear high 
resistance anomaly running for some 40m between 
grid squares 20 and 24. This might perhaps be a 
feature such as a stone-lined or ceramic drain, or 
might be a wall. There are very faint suggestions of 
other linear features in this part of the survey area, 
but all are too tentative to warrant the credibility 
lent by any attempt at delineation. 


DISCUSSION 


The implications of the geophysical survey results 
may be briefly summarised as follows. Despite the 
use of detailed and highly sensitive magnetometry, 
no convincing evidence was found for circular 
patterning or pit features in the area of the presumed 
stone circles. Whilst a possible broad and shallow 
ditch may have been located here by the caesium 
instrument this interpretation is speculative and the 
feature is not apparent in the corresponding earth 
resistance data. The very low values of soil magnetic 
susceptibility have resulted in a subdued magnetic 
response and in such circumstances it is possible 
that slight features such as postholes and gullies 
(and unburnt stone) might well have been missed. 
Such low magnetic susceptibility also indicates a 
lack of prolonged human settlement, of any age, in 
the survey area. A few magnetic anomalies, perhaps 
indicating pits of uncertain significance, have been 
noted near the limits of the scheduled area. 

The earth resistance survey also shows no 
conclusive evidence for prehistoric features. It has 


successfully detected most of the stones that 
compose the circles proposed by A.C. Smith, but 
these are shown to be part of a much wider and 
apparently random distribution of equivalent 
anomalies — with the inevitable implication that 
Smith’s discoveries, whilst genuine, were simply part 
of a wider spread of relict sarsen, rather than a 
deliberate composition. Smith’s imposition of 
circularity upon the stones he saw — tentative at 
best (Figure 1) — does not now seem so easily 
sustainable in this light. 

None of the stones seen by Smith was standing 
and that the stones mapped by Lukis were in fact 
naturally positioned sarsens must be considered 
highly likely. As elsewhere, the Lower Chalk bench 
here appears to have once contained a good spread 
of sarsens and large examples still turn up from 
time to time and are hauled to the edges of fields 
where they soon disappear, doubtless to local 
gardens. In 2000 a large heap of such removed 
sarsens was noted adjacent to Winterbourne 
Monkton Field by members of the Avebury 
Archaeological and Historical Research Group. The 
place-name Stanmoor (stonemoor), depicted as a 
large open field on the Tithe Award of 1840, lies 
just a kilometre to the west of the circle site, and 
also indicates the widespread presence of surface 
stone (even if the name is now reserved just for a 
small coppice). Smith himself records that large 
sarsens frequently caught the ploughshare about a 
kilometre to the west of the site above Clyffe Pypard 
and were hauled away by a team of horses (Smith 
1884, 78). Hoare’s siting of the circle lies on the 
slopes of a small valley and it is in such positions 
that sarsen might be expected to accumulate in a 
similar manner to the well known ‘trains’ a little to 
the south. This is supported by the observation of 
much sarsen material in the local field edges today 
along the northern field boundary of Lambourne 
Ground, and along the banks of the stream 
generally. One is reminded too of the presence of 
exposed sarsens, but not previously considered 
monumental, elsewhere in the field under 
consideration. 


Stukeley’s illustration 


An unpublished pen and ink wash sketch of the 
site (Figure 7) by Stukeley, archived amongst the 
Gough Maps at the Bodleian Library, Oxford 
(Gough Maps 231 Fol 216), may provide something 
of an answer. Crucially, Stukeley depicts the double 
concentric circle as being within view of Avebury. 


ie) 
io) 
bo 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 7. Sketch of the Winterbourne Bassett stone circle by William Stukeley, 1724 (Copyright: Bodleian Library, 
University of Oxford, Gough Maps 231, fol. 216) 


In the background of the illustration the tower of 
St James Church at Avebury is visible, as is Silbury 
Hill; beyond them the unmistakable profile of Tan 
Hill. The problem is immediately confronted, as 
none of these are visible from the scheduled site. 
The latter faces north and any view southwards 
towards Avebury is obscured by the rising ground 
of the ridge or spur which separates the Lambourne 
from its neighbouring stream to the south. Move a 
mere 50m to the south, however, to the summit of 
the ridge, and the panorama is as Stukeley 
illustrated it. There could of course have been a 
degree of artistic licence and perhaps Stukeley 
simply embroidered his horizon with Avebury 
landmarks for effect. Also, it was not unknown for 
him to adopt birds-eye viewpoints for his panoramas 
(e.g. Ucko et al. 1991, pl. 26). However, even if 
Stukeley could mould his sketches to illustrate his 
theories (ibid.), there is no indication that the circles 
at Winterbourne Bassett were part of any such 
schemes. It most resembles a field sketch, as a 
considerable amount of detail is presented, and any 
embroidery in these circumstances would have been 
highly out of character, as in so many other such 
illustrations he was at pains to set position and 
perspective as correctly as possible. There is no 
indication that he did anything other on this 
occasion, deliberately including Silbury Hill and 


Avebury church as specific geographical markers. 

If the illustration is correct, the stone circle must 
be located to the south of the ridge in full but distant 
view of Avebury. This is ‘elevated ground’ as 
described by Stukeley, rather than the valley slope, 
and it would place the site at about NGR SU 0930 
7535, that is south of the Winterbourne Bassett to 
Clyffe Pypard road and east of the former Broad 
Hinton to Yatesbury road, in the field described on 
the Tithe Award of 1840 as Rabson West Field (OS 
field number 3730).The field was arable at the time 
of the Tithe map survey and any surface evidence 
of the circle presumably long gone by that time, 
and not visible to enquirers. 

Should the illustration depict the site where 
Smith and others subsequently located it, the 
Winterbourne Bassett to Clyffe Pypard roadway 
and other features on the common might be 
expected to be shown immediately behind (1.e. to 
the south of) the circle. Instead, field boundaries 
approximating those depicted on the Tithe 
Apportionment appear in the middle distance — 
suggesting that the circle in fact lay to the south of 
the roadway. 

Beneath the illustration is the caption ‘Double 
circle of stones 100 ft. diam. At Winterburn basset 
20 May 1724. Outr circle consists of 60 stones’. 
This contrasts a little with the published 60 cubits 


‘A FAMILY CHAPEL ...TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 203 


(Stukeley 1743, 43), that is approximately 34m, and 
makes the circle quite small, just over 30m. 
There is also a discrepancy in terms of the 
number of stones. Whereas the caption indicates 
that there must be well over 60, the drawing depicts 
a total of only 49. Some may of course be hidden 
from view behind other stones, but it may be that 
some were too small or not prominent enough for 
Stukeley to incorporate them from his viewpoint. 
If the circle is only 30m across then some of the 
stones depicted must merely be small boulders, 
whilst others are larger. A single large stone lies in 
the south-west, perhaps two in the south-east, and 
a group of three or four in the north-east. None of 


these is particularly striking, or stands out in any 
way — as if marking entrances, for example. The 
largest must be little over 1m in height. Nor is there 
any discernible difference in stone size between the 
two circuits. There are a number of gaps in both 
circles though these may simply be where stones 
have been removed. 

The spacing between the circles appears to be 
quite small, in the order of an average stone width, 
perhaps a metre. In the south there are a 
considerable number of stones missing from one 
of the circles, probably the inner, but it is not 
possible to be certain about this. In fact, with the 
exception of the foreground where two arcs are clear 


Fig. 8. Air photograph of a ring ditch and other features some 300m north-northeast of the stone circle site 
(Copyright: Libraries and Heritage, Wiltshire County Council) 


204 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


enough, the sketch is surprisingly ambiguous in its 
representation of the remainder as a double circle. 
On balance the illustration appears to depict a 
genuine monument. The fact that many stones are 
small, prone, missing etc., and that the drawing does 
not depict a neat geometric arrangement, or cluster 
of boulders, does help to suggest that the 
arrangement is not simply the result of recent 
removal from a group of naturally placed boulders 
for, say, house construction, or alternatively, of 
dumping of stones from a cultivated area. As 
depicted by Stukeley, however, it is worth noting 
the dissimilarity with the only other double circle 
in the vicinity, the Sanctuary, where stones are 
regularly and more widely spaced, a contrast so 
marked that Stukeley made no comparison. Instead 
he gives the monument a subsidiary role to Avebury, 
‘a family chapel’, disconnected from the grander 
scheme, and for local use only. 


Associated features 


According to Stukeley a barrow or cairn lay to the 
north of the circle in a field then under cultivation. 
His description suggests that it may have had a 
peristalith or kerb of sarsens, or, in view of his phrase 
‘composed of large stones’ it might perhaps have 
been a ruined chambered tomb or cairn. Its position 
within a then cultivated field also allows the 
possibility that it was little more than an 
accumulation of stone resulting from field clearance. 
Grinsell recorded this as Winterbourne Bassett Ic, 
a destroyed sarsen cairn and observed that it had 
been levelled prior to 1883 when Lukis visited the 
site (Grinsell 1973, 200; Lukis 1883, 347; Barker 
1985, 23). Whether we accept a revised location 
for the stone circle, or use the existing one, the 
nearest field depicted as cultivated on early maps 
was Winterbourne West Field (OS field numbers 
0005 and 5200) on the northern slope of the 
Lambourne valley. This was arable in 1840, and 
from its name is likely to have been in cultivation 
since the Medieval period. Given the scanty 
description, this appears to be the most likely 
general location for the barrow. An oblique aerial 
photograph taken in January 1977 by Roy Canham 
(AER 694: NMRWTC 19042/694) depicts a large 
ring ditch within the eastern part of this field (OS 
5200) at NGR SU 095 759 (Figure 8). The circular 
ditch lies within an extensive scatter of chalk, 
evidently the remnants of a levelled mound, while 
it is in part surrounded by an arc of dark patches 
that might mark the position of extracted boulders. 


A further mound, NMR No. SU 07 NE 11 
(Wilts 580), situated 300m to the east of the stone 
circle was considered by Grinsell (1973) to be a 
doubtful barrow and was in turn discounted by 
Barker (1985). 

At a similar distance from the circle, though 
west of it, Stukeley observed an outlying standing 
stone. A single stone stands today at the road 
junction, but this has been raised only recently. The 
outlying stone depicted on the OS Ist edition 25- 
inch survey may have helped confirm the view that 
Smith’s site was genuine. 


CONCLUSIONS 


The evidence, both of the geophysical survey and 
of the Stukeley sketch published here for the first 
time, suggests that the currently accepted, and 
scheduled, location of the Winterbourne Bassett 
stone circle must now be considered in doubt. That 
such a monument once existed seems highly 
probable but the balance of evidence suggests that 
its identification with a scatter of stones located at 
Upper Oxleaze may well be erroneous. The earth 
resistance survey has located a large number of 
sarsens which we interpret as part of a naturally- 
occurring distribution without any deliberate 
patterning. Scrutiny of the Stukeley sketch and the 
alignment identified therein seems to confirm the 
consequent implication that the circle in fact lies 
elsewhere. In this case, using the directional clues 
provided by the sketch, it seems more likely that 
the circle in fact once lay to the south of the lane 
leading to Clyffe Pypard, either on the crest of the 
spur here, or on its southern flank. Perhaps a 
flanking location can be surmised as it seems that 
Stukeley’s viewpoint was from a slightly raised 
position with respect to the circles — unless this was 
a deliberate manipulation to enhance his depiction 
of the site’s lay-out. Unfortunately, the reference 
by Stukeley to a nearby barrow and outlying stone 
is not very helpful as neither can now certainly be 
identified, although the ring ditch identified from 
an air photograph must be a contender. 

Future fieldwork should perhaps firstly focus 
upon the currently accepted site of the circles to 
test the hypothesis advanced above that the stones 
there are not part of a deliberate placement. An 
artificial arrangement would be signalled by the 
presence of stone holes and other signs of 
construction as well as, perhaps, associated features 
and cultural material undetected by non-intrusive 


‘A FAMILY CHAPEL . ..TO AN ARCHDRUID’S DWELLING’ 205 


survey. The presence of ridge and furrow suggests 
at least some potential for the preservation of an 
underlying surface. Should some stones be shown 
to have been buried in pits — a characteristic not 
defined by the geophysical surveys, then, as at 
Avebury itself, the likelihood will be that they were 
once deliberately placed upright, rather than 
naturally prone. 

Both the magnetic and the earth resistance 
surveys located anomalies that would bear further 
investigation by excavation. The resistance data, 
apart from indicating many previously unrecorded 
buried stones, also detected a linear feature of 
unknown significance; the magnetometer survey 
tentatively located a broad and shallow ?ditch 
feature within the scheduled area and, although 
distant from the presumed site of the circles, a 
number of pits — all which deserve to be investigated. 
If the circles cannot be pinned down in this way, 
then fieldwork would need to be expanded to search 
the area to the south of the road. Unfortunately, 
however one may interpret the evidence presented 
above, no certain and specific revised location 
suggests itself for detailed survey. Although the area 
around SU 0930 7535 provides an optimistic focus, 
it would be necessary to apply geophysical survey, 
both earth resistance and magnetometer survey, 
over an area of about 15 hectares — a feasible but 
rather daunting task given the uncertainty that the 
site would be detectable even if its true location 
was covered. The difficulty of detecting stone 
settings — if these have been removed — needs no 
reiteration (Ucko et al. 1991; David 2001). For the 
time being, and until such further investigations can 
be carried out, it seems that the exact whereabouts 
and character of the circles and any associated 
monuments at Winterbourne Bassett remain 
uncertain. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The assistance of a number of individuals in 
preparing this report is gratefully acknowledged. 
We would like to thank David Jones for allowing 
the surveys to take place on his land. Graham Brown 
kindly inspected the map of Winterbourne Bassett 
at the British Library. Figures 7 and 8 are supplied 
with kind permission of the Bodleian Library, 
Oxford, and of Wiltshire County Council 
respectively. Louise Martin kindly prepared the 
figures relating to the geophysical surveys. Mark 
Bowden corrected and made useful comments to 
an earlier draft of the text. 


Bibliography 


BARKER, C.T., 1985, The long mounds of the Avebury 
region. WANHM 79, 7-38 

BURL, A., 2000, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and 
Brittany. New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press 

CLEAL, R.M.J., and MONTAGUE, R., 2001, ‘Neolithic 
and early Bronze Age’, in A. Chadburn and M. 
Pomeroy-Kellinger (eds), Archaeological Research 
Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site. 
Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology 

COLE, M., DAVID, A., FASSBINDER, J.W.E., 
LINFORD, N., LINFORD, P., and PAYNE, A., 
1999, ‘Comparative high resolution caesium vapour 
and fluxgate gradiometer survey at a range of 
archaeological sites in England’, in J.W.E. Fassbinder 
and W.E. Irlinger (eds), Archaeological Prospection, 
22-23. Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamtes Fhr 
Denkmalpflege, Band 108. 

CRITTALL, E. (ed.), 1952, Andrews and Dury’s Map of 
Wiltshire 1773. Devizes: WANHS Records Branch 8 

DAVID, A., 1998, Stanton Drew. PAST (Newsletter of 
the Prehistoric Society) 28, 1-3 

DAVID, A., 2001, ‘Geophysical Survey’, in A. Chadburn 
and M. Pomeroy-Kellinger (eds), Archaeological 
Research Agenda for the Avebury World Heritage Site. 
Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology 

DAVID, A., COLE, M., HORSLEY, T., LINFORD, N., 
LINFORD, P., and MARTIN, L., Forthcoming, ‘A 
rival for Stonehenge?’ The results of geophysical 
survey at Stanton Drew, England 

FREEMAN, J., 1983, ‘Winterbourne Bassett’, in D.A. 
Crowley (ed), A History of Wiltshire 12, 184-192. 
London: Institute of Historical Research 

GILLINGS, M., POLLARD, J., WHEATLEY, D. and 
PETERSON, R. Forthcoming, Excavations on the 
Avebury monuments 

GRINSELL, L.V., 1957, ‘Archaeological gazetteer’, in 
R.B. Pugh. and E. Crittall (eds), A History of Wiltshire 
1(1). London: Institute of Historical Research 

HOARE, R.C., 1821, The Ancient History of Wiltshire, 
Volume 2. London: Lackington, et al 

IGS 1974, Geological Survey of Great Britain (England 
& Wales), Marlborough: Sheet 266. London 

LUKIS, W.C., 1883, Report on the prehistoric 
monuments of Wilts., Somerset and South Wales. 
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London 
2 Series 9(3), 344-55 

SMITH, A.C., 1884, Guide to the British and Roman 
Antiquities of North Wiltshire. Devizes: WANHS 

SSEW, 1983, Soil Survey of England and Wales, 
1:250,000 Soils of England and Wales Sheet 5: South 
West England. London 

STURELEY, W., 1743, Abury, a temple of the British 
Druids with some others described. London 

UCKO, P.J., HUNTER, M., CLARK, A.J., and DAVID, 
A., 1991, Avebury Reconsidered: from the 1660s to 
the 1990s. London: Unwin Hyman 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 206-228 


Notes and Shorter Contributions 


Recent work on St Laurence’s Chapel, Bradford- 
on-Avon: an interim report 


by David A. Hinton 


During September 2000 the author and students 
from the Department of Archaeology, University 
of Southampton, excavated on the south side of 
the Anglo-Saxon chapel of St. Laurence, Bradford- 
on-Avon, to try to establish whether there had been 
a chamber under the floor of the former south 
porticus. 

In the 18th century the chapel was used as a 
school, with a house for the school-master replacing 
the former south porticus. The house was pulled 
down in 1881, two large buttresses being built up 
against the scars of the porticus walls. The house 
had a cellar, and the architect J.T. Irvine recorded 
dressed ashlar masonry visible in it below the south 
door into the nave, and in its east wall a projecting 
plinth of stonework different from that above. Irvine 
took this as evidence for a crypt, but uncharacter- 
istically did not give stone-by-stone drawings of the 
masonry, only a few lines to show coursing. The 
cellar was filled in, so, as H.M. Taylor wrote 
“excavation and careful study. .. is clearly needed 
to settle with certainty whether this space is an 
Anglo-Saxon crypt or a late medieval cellar’ (Taylor 
1973, 153,n.12). The imminence of the millennium 
anniversary of King Ethelred’s gift of Bradford to 
Shaftesbury Abbey in 1001, as a refuge for Edward 
the Martyr’s and other relics, provided an 
appropriate occasion to see whether the chapel 
could be better understood. 

Excavation was between and to either side of 
the two buttresses. Everything west of the east 


buttress was backfill of the cellar, as the house had 
been wider than the former porticus. To the east, 
the ground had been made up after 1881; Irvine 
had been able to record the deep rubble footings of 
the nave at the end of a slype between the house 
wall and a tumble-down stable (reproduced in 
Taylor 1972, pl. xviii). No medieval levels were 
therefore disturbed, and the only medieval artefacts 
expected or found were a few worked stones in the 
rubble. 

The masonry exposed below the south door 
proved to be indubitably Anglo-Saxon; not only 
could no stonework have been inserted in that 
position without showing disturbance, but the 
coursing and fine jointing is very similar to that in 
the rest of the chapel, even including an example 
of ‘joggled’ stone cutting, a technique which may 
be unique in England at Bradford. It was originally 
expected that it would be feasible only to expose 
the first two or three courses of this masonry, 
enough to establish its date. The footings of the 
Victorian buttresses were so substantial, however, 
that with the agreement of the Trustees’ architect, 
MrV. Gibbs, it was decided to continue downwards, 
and in the end it was possible to expose the whole 
wall down to the level of the cellar floor. Most of 
the joints had been re-pointed during restoration 
work, but some of the lowest retained lime mortar. 

Irvine’s interpretation was further confirmed by 
the bottom part of the east buttress, which was 
found to rest on two courses of fine-jointed 


Dept. of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


masonry, also lime-mortared. One stone of a third 
course survived in the corner, bonded into the south 
wall and in the same line of coursing as one of those 
in that wall, so there can be no doubt that the work 
is coeval. The bottom courses of the south wall and 
one stone in the east, forming the north-west corner, 
had horizontal slots roughly cut in them. Another 
stone found loose in the rubble had another slot in 
this series. There was presumably a flight of steps 
here, and archaeologically it would not be possible 
to say that they were not Anglo-Saxon in date. 
Irvine, however, referred in a letter of 1874 to seeing 
the base of a south door jamb ‘below the old stairs 
in the cellar’ (quoted in Taylor 1972, 97), which 
suggests that the steps were cut in the school- 
master’s days. 

If the steps were post-medieval, there is no trace 
of the original access into the crypt. The south wall 
masonry is not pierced for a stairway leading down 
from the nave floor — nor was there a smaller 
opening for a viewing shaft. Either the chamber was 
self-contained, with an outside door, or it was 
accessible only from within the south porticus, by 
some presumably fairly narrow and steep stairway. 
A point in support of the former is that the natural 
fall of the ground at Bradford would have meant 
that most if not all of the chamber would have been 
exposed. It was not a crypt in the sense of being 
underground. This helps to explain why the south 
wall masonry has no trace of springing for a stone 
vault, normal in crypts — but they would usually be 
buttressed by the earth outside. At Bradford, the 


207 


ceiling of the undercroft must have been flat, 
supported by north-south joists. 

Further work could be done at Bradford, since 
only the north end of the chamber was revealed, 
and Irvine’s drawings suggest that its east wall was 
about the same length as that of the north porticus. 
Although he did not see any trace of either south 
or west walls, something might yet be recognisable 
below the level of the cellar floor. A full report will 
not be prepared until it is known whether there will 
be an opportunity to pursue this option. The 2000 
excavation has been backfilled, as scaffolding put 
across it to allow access to the south door proved 
both expensive and unsightly. Some sort of bridging 
structure is to be considered, however, which might 
allow at least part of the masonry to be seen, and at 
the same time provide wheel-chair access, a fitting 
millenary contribution to the chapel. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Department is grateful for the support of the 
Trustees of the Chapel, which enabled the work to 
take place. Help with creating the photographic 
record was given by Tom Cromwell, of English 
Heritage’s Central Archaeological Service. 


Bibliography 


TAYLOR, H.M., 1972, J.T. Irvine’s work at Bradford- 
on-Avon. Archaeological Journal 129, 89-118 

TAYLOR, H.M., 1973, The Anglo-Saxon Chapel at 
Bradford-on-Avon. Archaeological Journal 130, 141- 
171 


From Tiny Seeds. . . a Correction 


by Antoinnette Rawlings 


Since publication of a paper about the Darby and 
Joan seed picture (WANHM 94, 177-81), a relative 
of one of the previous owners and a member of the 
Society made contact to clarify its recent 
provenance. The museum had been informed, 
incorrectly as it turns out, that the seed picture had 
come to auction having been salvaged from the 


effects of Katherine Pleydell-Bouverie after her 
death. In fact, Katherine never owned the picture 
although it had belonged to some close relatives. 
At some point the seed picture was handed 
down from Constance Jane Pleydell-Bouverie to 
her nieces, Mary Esther and Margaret Makgill- 
Crichton-Maitland of Knook Manor near 


River and Rowing Museum, Mill Meadows, Henly on Thames RG9 1BF 


208 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Warminster. When Margaret (known as Marjorie) 
moved to a smaller house in 1961, she gave the 
picture to her cousin Nancy Pleydell-Bouverie. 
Caught up in a pile of old clothes and rubbish, it 
was saved from destruction in a bonfire by the 
gardener’s wife and remained with her until its 
acquisition by the museum in 1997. (The 
acquisition was made possible by grant aid from 
the MGC/V&A Purchase Grant Fund, The Beecroft 
Bequest and the Primrose Trust.) The Society is 
indebted to Mr Wilson for this information. 

A possible source of the sorghum seed used to 


create the picture has been suggested by Henry R 
Arnold of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. 
Sorghum was in cultivation in Britain by 1596 and 
was referred to in the catalogue of the plants in 
Thomas Gerard’s garden, published in that year. It 
was first reported growing in the wild in 1890 and 
is usually found near docks or rubbish tips, the seed 
deriving from wool shoddy or waste bird-seed. Mr 
Arnold suggests that sorghum may have been 
imported for food for caged birds as early as the 
eighteenth century and this might be the source of 
the seed head in the picture. 


A Bronze Genius figure from Badbury 
by Bernard Phillips! and Martin Henig’ 


THE SITE 


While searching in a ploughed field to the east of 
the village of Badbury a metal detector user located 
a small bronze figurine. The finder, Joe Rossi, 
showed his discovery to the first author who 
contacted the second author concerning the find. 
The site of discovery is situated on the plateau 
lying between the edge of the chalk escarpment and 
Liddington Hill, which fronts the higher chalk of 
the Marlborough Downs. Lying on the Oxford clay, 
at the bottom of the escarpment and beneath the 
find spot Roman remains were discovered in 1956 
(SU194 806). Subsequent excavation uncovered 
the foundations of a building (Ravetz 1958). In 
1969 construction of the M4 motorway largely 
destroyed an extensive and richly endowed Roman- 
British villa complex here (Fowler and Walters 1981, 
91-110). Rescue work by the former Swindon Arch- 
aeological Society recovered much of the villa 
buildings’ plan and retrieved finds that demonstrate 
occupation from the mid Ist to the early 5th 
centuries. On top of the chalk plateau and east of 
the figurine’s findspot, the motorway construction 
also revealed an early Romano-British farmstead 
(Fowler and Walters 1981, 115-119), and, close to 
the find location at SU 196 807, a chalk walled 


building of unusual shape. Pottery, terracotta tile 
and stone roofing tile from the structure suggest a 
Romano-British date (Fowler and Walters 1981, 
110-111). 

A visit to the findspot by the first author revealed 
a scatter of pottery in the ploughsoil, containing 
sherds ranging in date from the Bronze Age through 
to the 19th century. The most numerous, however, 
were coarseware sherds dating to the Ist or 2nd 
centuries AD. The small and worn nature of the 
scattered sherds would suggest that they derived 
from spreading of night soil and farmyard waste as 
fertilizer on fields belonging to the villa or 
farmstead. 


THE FIGURINE 


The figurine is fairly small, only measuring 71mm 
in height. It was solid cast in bronze, but with some 
secondary tooling especially in the richly patterned 
hair. Like many Roman-period bronzes it evidently 
has a high lead content so it is quite heavy for its 
size (0.1185kg). It portrays a clean-shaven youth. 
His head is large in relation to the body, in order to 
give it particular emphasis (a feature characteristic 
of Romano-Celtic art). All the features of the face 
are there apart from the ears, which are covered by. 


' 15 Yiewsley Crescent, Stratton St Margaret, Swindon SN3 4LT 


* Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont St., Oxford OX1 2PG 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


209 


Fig. 1. A Bronze Genius Figure from Badbury (Drawn by Chris Silvanus). Scale 1:1. 


the ample profusion of hair. The expression is, 
however, rather bland and mask-like. The best 
features here are the eyes, somewhat almond shape 
with well-defined pupils and lids; the nose is worn 
and has sustained slight damage; the mouth is slit- 
like. The hair is elaborately coiffured from a 
prominent topknot above the forehead through a 
series of folds framing the brows and the face and 
terminating in a U-shaped fringe behind, at the 
nape of the neck. Little of the body is shown 
because the torso is swathed in the ample mass of 
a mantle elegantly patterned with transverse folds 
front and back; the end of this garment draped 
over the right shoulder of the subject. Below this 
garment can be seen the skirt of a tunic with 
vertical pleating front and back. 

Apart from the rather mask-like face, only the 
hands and lower legs project from the drapery. A 
groove intended to separate hand and thumb 
appears on both left and right hands and it is likely 
that both originally grasped attributes; the right 
hand could have held a cornucopia (horn of plenty), 
but the angle to the body would be a little odd so 
possibly he grasped a scroll; he almost certainly had 
a patera in his left hand if, as suggested, the subject 
is a Genius (see Henig in Leech 1986, 277 no. 7 
and fig. 16, a scroll and not a cornucopia as stated). 
Although the bronze will stand well by itself it was 
probably affixed to a base like that upon which a 
Genius-Bonus Eventus figurine from Richborough 
stands (see Bushe-Fox 1949, 133-5, no. 158, pl. xli). 


The figurine is best paralleled by one from Earith 
in Cambridgeshire (Green and Henig 1988), which 
is, however, twice the size at 147mm. ‘There the 
subject has a Gallic coat below the mantle rather 
than a tunic, but the hairstyle is similar even if without 
the topknot, and the arms are held in a similar 
manner. By virtue of a circular object in his right 
hand he was interpreted as an offering figure perhaps 
a Genius. The likely original context of the Badbury 
figure, a Roman villa, makes it tempting to suggest 
that it too was a Genius and came from the house’s 
Lararium. Both Earith and Badbury figures can be 
seen as Romano-British versions of the well-known 
Roman Genius type (Alcock 1986) represented in 
stone, bronze and engraved gems often togate, but 
sometimes as in the case of the stone statuette from 
Annetwell Street, Carlisle, wearing a tunic; here the 
transverse folds are not unlike those of the Badbury 
bronze (Alcock 1986, 121 fig. 1). 

Stylistically attention should be drawn to several 
bronzes from Wiltshire. Closest is a bronze figurine 
of Vulcan from North Bradley (Henig 1991) with 
transverse grooved drapery and pleated skirt. At 
106mm it is again larger than the Badbury bronze. 
Six of the figurines from the Southbroom (Devizes) 
cache likewise had pleated tunics and four had 
transverse folds across the torsos. Their subjects 
are varied, but none can be identified as a Genius, 
and the only Genius from the assemblage was of 
Classical type and togate (Kaufmann-Heinimann 
1982, 232, Abb. 182). 


210 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


While the rather schematic nature of the 
modelling of the Southbroom figures suggest an 
early date when native smiths were absorbing the 
lessons of Roman bronze craftsmanship, the North 
Bradley and Badbury figurines are perhaps later, 
probably 2nd century. One quite sophisticated 
feature derived from Graeco-Roman art is the 
topknot, which is paralleled on a tripod mount 
depicting a Bacchic head from London (Henig 
1976). The cascading locks of this head and others 
like it suggests an origin for the Badbury Genius. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Joe Rossi for 
permitting the find to be published and for Chris 
Silvanus for illustrating the find. 


References 
ALCOCK, J.P., 1986, “The Concept of Genius in Roman 


Britain’, in M. Henig and A. King (eds), Pagan Gods 
and Shrines of the Roman Empire, 113-33. Oxford: 


Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 

BUSHE-FOX, J.P., 1949, Fourth Report on the 
Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent. 
London: Society of Antiquaries of London, Research 
Report 16 

FOWLER, P.J., and WALTERS, B., 1981, Archaeology and 
the M4 Motorway, 1969-71, WANHM 74/5, 69-132 

GREEN, H.J.M., and HENIG, M, 1988, A Roman 
Bronze Figurine from Earith, Cambridgeshire, 
Journal of the British Archaeological Association 141, 
159-61 

HENIG, M., 1976, A Roman tripod-mount from the 
G.P.O. site, London, Antiquaries Journal 56, 248-9 

HENIG, M., 1991, A Bronze Vulcan from North Bradley, 
WANHM 84, 120-122 

KAUFMANN-HEINIMANN, A, 1998, Gotter and 
Lararien aus Augusta Raurica Herstellung, 
Fundzusammenhange und Sakrala Funktion 
Figurlicher Bronzen in einer Romischen Stadt. Augst: 
Forschungen in Augst 26 

LEECH, R, 1986, The excavation of a Romano-Celtic 
temple and a later cemetery on Lamyatt Beacon, 
Somerset, Britannia 17, 259-328 

RAVETZ, A., 1958, A Romano-British site at Badbury, 
Wilts., WANHM 57, 24-9 


Thomas Twining’s Roman Avebury 


by Rick Peterson 


In 1723 Thomas Twining (1668-1739), vicar of 
Wilsford and Charlton in the Vale of Pewsey, 
published the first detailed account of the Avebury 
stone circles and avenues. It appeared in a pamphlet 
dedicated to Lord Winchelsea entitled Avebury in 
Wiltshire, the remains of a Roman work, erected 
by Vespatian and Julius Agricola, during their several 
commands in Britanny (Twining 1723). Twining’s 
work does not appear to have had a large impact 
on early 18th century understandings of Avebury. 
William Stukeley, for example, briefly refuted a 
circumstantial detail of Twining’s thesis in his field 
notes of 1724 (Bodl MS Gough Maps 231 f47 v), 
dismissed the work in letters to Roger Gale (Ucko 
et al. 1991, 38), and by the time Abury (Stukeley 
1743) was published nineteen years later did not 


feel that Twining’s arguments merited a response. 
Later commentators have been equally dismissive: 
Lukis (1881, 154-5); Burl (1979, 51); and Ucko et 
al. (1991, 37-9) all focus on two of Twining’s 
perceived shortcomings. Firstly, Twining was heavily 
criticised for over-imagination in his description and 
plan of the monument. His frontispiece (Figure 1) 
shows how he believed the completed monument 
complex to have looked. He not only included 
Stukeley’s Beckhampton Avenue, but added two 
more avenues to the west and south, to complete a 
polygonal arrangement supposed to be symbolic 
of the Roman understanding of the shape of Britain. 
Secondly, his Roman date for the complex was 
regarded as misguided, even in the light of early 
18th century knowledge of the past. 


SCARAB Research Centre, UWCN, Caerleon Campus, PO Box 179, Newport, NP18 3YG 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


CUNETIUM , Romano-Britamicum Infule totus Secundum 


y Aveburienfis dd Oniterem primaiun ti dies periliwun Revecitits 


9 


Fig. 1. The frontispiece to Twining’s pamphlet, showing his reconstruction of the Avebury complex 


Twining was clearly wrong in giving a Roman 
date for Avebury. His error probably arose from a 
simple lack of experience in interpreting field 
monuments. His argument was heavily based on 
textual evidence, particularly the Agricola, and he 
tended to equate many classes of field monument 
directly and simplistically to the deeds of historical 
Roman personages. Barrow clusters were held to 
mark the sites of battles on the Roman advance, 
with the (Roman) round barrows showing the 
position of Vespasian’s lines and the (British) long 
barrows those of his opponents (Twining 1723, 17). 
Similarly, he thought of the Wansdyke as an 
entrenchment built by Legio IT Augusta during the 
campaign (Twining 1723, 17) and Silbury Hill as a 
memorial to Titus constructed by Agricola (Twining 


1723, 10). Given this background it is perhaps not 
surprising that he ascribed a Roman date to Avebury 
on the following rather nebulous evidence: 


the Coins there found, and the Genius of a People, 
who spar’d no Labour or Expence in lasting 
Monuments of themselves, and their Conquests. 
(Twining 1723, 4) 


And the absence of any conception that field 
monuments might predate the Roman conquest: 


A Saxon Work belike it was not, not having a Place 
in their Annals with their Military Actions near it. 
British it could not be, the Britains being too much 
under the Romans to raise it; consequently, ‘tis of 
Roman Original; and, not without probable 


bo 


Appearances, had Agricola for its Author. (Twining 
1723, 13) 


Despite his inexperience, it is less clear that 
‘Twining was an unreliable observer of the complex 
as it existed in his day. His descriptions (Twining 
1723, 6-8, 15) of the surviving parts of the West 
Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues and the 
Sanctuary are close to Stukeley’s more detailed 
notes. As Burl (2000, 325-6) has noted, even before 
its recent rediscovery (Gillings et al. 2000), Twining 
might have provided a second contemporary voice 
to support Stukeley’s (1743, 35: Bodl MS Gough 
Maps 231 £223) description of the Beckhampton 
Avenue: 


To the oblong Part of the Circus this Village 
[Beckhampton] joins.. ...the large Stones to the West, 
the Remains of the Discus now standing, are still call’d 
the Devil’s Coits (Gale’s Iter. p. 135) a term owing 
to the early Zeal of Christianity, both the discoun- 
tenance all Resort to the Circus, (a Practice loudly 
decried by Tertullian, de spectaculis) and prevent the 
Damage such a Concourse of People must do in the 
Fields. Not that these two Stones were ever British 


THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Deities, as some Learned Men, without any Ground, 
have fancied; but a part of the Discus, as other Stones 
lying in the same field do shew, to justifie the Figure 
I have assigned the Whole. (Twining 1723, 15) 


‘Twining’s recording of the name ‘Devil’s Coits’ 
for the Beckhampton Cove resolves the ambiguity 
caused by John Aubrey’s recording of a monument 
under the same name as lying to the south of 
Avebury (Fowles and Legg 1980, 823). Stukeley 
and Twining were clearly recording the same 
monument, and both place it correctly in 
Longstones Field. However, Twining’s account also 
claims two other avenues in the complex, to 
complete his map of Britannia, for which there has 
never been any evidence. It is largely these 
extraneous avenues which have led to his reputation 
as an unreliable field observer (Burl 1979, 51: Ucko 
et al. 1991, 37-8). However, it is important to note 
that Twining never claimed to have seen stones 
surviving on all of his avenues: 


As to the Figure I suppose the Stones to at first have 
form’d, I appeal to the Remains whether real or not, 
when compar’d with those of late Years taken away, 


Harepit Lane 


Oa 


4 Roman Road 


2km 


SJ 


tne 


7 Silbury =. 
ey 


Hy yf 


SS Roman Road. 


\ West Kennet 


Fig. 2. Elements of the Avebury landscape used by Twining to construct his map 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


so much to the Injury, and defacing the Order. 
(Twining 1723, 3) 


It seems likely that what he did see in the case 
of both his western and southern avenues were 
earthwork remains, envisaged as connected with the 
complex, from which he made up the form 
illustrated. Figure 2 shows linear earthworks and 
megalithic settings in this part of the Avebury 
region. It seems clear that Twining assembled his 
map of the Avebury complex (symbolizing Roman 
Britain) from the following components of varying 
date: Avebury; the West Kennet avenue; the 
Sanctuary; the surviving portions of the Roman 
road between Overton Hill and Fox Covert; Harepit 
Lane; and the Beckhampton avenue. As we have 
seen, Twining’s inexperience would have led him 
to disregard the varying date of these monuments: 
to him all field monuments were of Roman or later 
date. In essence both Twining and Stukeley were 
seeing the monument in a similar way. Rather than 
seeing single monuments and unconnected sites, 
they saw the remains as a single complex purposely 
built to symbolize a particular form. Stukeley’s 
serpent and Twining’s map are examples of the same 
18th century vision of monuments and their 
relationship to the landscape. 

In summary, while Twining’s inexperience and 
the changes in archaeological understanding since 
the 1720s mean that his interpretations are now 
discredited, there is no reason to doubt his field 


213 


observations. In particular, Twining gives us an 
independent description of the state of the 
Beckhampton Avenue in the Longstones Field 
which matches Stukeley’s observations of around 
the same date. 


Bibliography 


BURL, A., 1979, Prehistoric Avebury. New Haven & 
London: Yale University Press 

BURL, A., 2000, The stone circles of Britain, Ireland 
and Brittany. New Haven & London: Yale University 
Press 

FOWLES, J. and LEGG, R., (eds) 1980, John Aubrey’s 
Monumenta Britannica, parts 1-2. Sherbourne: 
Dorset Pub. Co 

GILLINGS, M., POLLARD, J. and WHEATLEY, D., 
2000, The Beckhampton Avenue and a ‘new’ 
Neolithic enclosure near Avebury: an interim report 
on the 1999 excavations. WANHM 93, 1-8 

LUKIS, W.C., 1881, Report on the prehistoric 
monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury. Proceedings 
of the Society of Antiquaries of London (2 series) 
9, 141-57 

STUKELEY, W., 1743, Abury, a temple of the British 
druids, with some others described. London 

TWINING, T., 1723, Avebury in Wiltshire, the remains 
of a Roman work, erected by Vespatian and Julius 
Agricola, during their several commands in Britanny. 
London: J. Downing 

UCKO, P.J., HUNTER, M., CLARK,.A.J. and DAVID, 
A., 1991, Avebury reconsidered: from the 1660s to 
the 1990s. London: Unwin Hyman 


Early Dog Collars in Wiltshire Museums 
by Kenneth Rogers! and Paul Robinson? 


The practice of providing collars for dogs can be 
traced from ancient times, being shown, for 
instance, on wall-paintings at Pompeii. The finest 
collection in this country is at Leeds Castle, Kent, 
which includes examples, mainly from the 
continent, dating from the 15th century onwards. 
English and American examples are illustrated in 
books on antique metalware. Four metal collars are 
held in Wiltshire museums: 


Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum 
(accession number 26/1961) 

A bronze collar inscribed This is John Falkner of 
Kingslear his doge 1675. Approximately 80mm 
open but about 65mm closed, and 25mm deep, 
so for a small dog. It is fitted with a simple hasp 
set horizontally and one corresponding rectangular 
hole. There is no other attachment for a lead or 
chain. 


' Silverthorne House, East Town, West Ashton, Trowbridge BA14 6BE ? Wiltshire Heritage Museum, 41 Long Street, Devizes SN10 1NS 


214 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


The mis-spelt place is Kingsclere, Hampshire, 
where the Fauconer family had held land since the 
15th century. 


Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum 
(accession number 1906/1971) 

A copper alloy collar inscribed F G. HAMLEY in 
a simple cartouche. Approximately 105mm open 
and 30mm deep. It is fitted with a ring hasp set 
vertically and has six corresponding vertical slots 


and a small retaining collar. Opposite, fixed by a 
rivet, is an iron ring, with a link running loosely 
through it to attach a chain. Probably 19th century. 


Trowbridge Museum 

(accession number 2000.293) 

A brass collar inscribed Nicholas Cross Trowbridge 
1786. Approximately 165mm open and 55mm deep. 


The edges have been decorated by cutting them in 
a fine zig-zag and then turning the points outwards. 
The original method of fastening was apparently 
by using a series of small swivelling catches and a 
horizontal slot; only one catch remains, attached 
by a rivet, but there are holes for four more. This 
method has been replaced by a series of three 
horizontal slots, rather crudely cut, one of which 
cuts into the letter N of the inscription. These were 
used by fitting one of them over the heavy ring, set 
horizontally, originally provided to hold a chain. 
Considerable force is needed to do this even for 
the loosest fitting. Deposited on loan by Mrs 
Patricia Snell. 

Two Nicholas Crosses lived in the town in 1786. 
The father was minister of the Silver Street 
Presbyterian Church 1758-81, and continued to 
live in Trowbridge until his death in 1803.The son 
(1759-1811) was a clothier who built c.1793 one 
of the large houses at the top of Castle Street now 
occupied by Sylvester and Mackett. 


Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes. (accession 
number DM578) 

An iron collar inscribed Samuel Jones at the Manor 
of Ramsbury 1685. This collar is hinged in three 
places: at its fullest opening it is approximately 
175mm across, and is approximately 34mm deep. 


It is fitted with a hasp set vertically and has four 
corresponding vertical slots. There is no other fixing 
for a chain. Deposited on loan by Mr R. Hale of 
Coulston. This collar is described in WANHM 51, 
1945, 232-4 as an example of “The jougs’, an old 
form of punishment mainly associated with 
Scotland. 

Samuel Jones succeeded to the Ramsbury estate 
in 1685 and died in 1686. Information on other 
local collars would be welcome. : 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


A Newly Discovered Round Barrow and 
Proposed Dispersed Linear Cemetery at 


Boscombe Down West 


by Bob Clarke and Colin Kirby 


The airfield at DERA Boscombe Down has been the subject of much recent archaeological work, with a 
number of features being recognised ranging from the Bronze Age through to the post-medieval period. A 
new barrow was discovered during fieldwork in 1996 on the northern sector of the site by the then Boscombe 
Down archaeologist, Colin Kirby. This paper describes the monument’s present condition and suggests 
that the new discovery may form part of a dispersed linear cemetery centred on Boscombe Down West. 
This may in turn form one element of a large area cemetery possibly using Stonehenge, to the east, as a 


central focus. 


INTRODUCTION 


Over the last ten years land between the Defence 
Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA) airfield at 
Boscombe Down and the town of Amesbury has 
been the subject of intensive archaeological 
investigation (Rawlings and Fitzpatrick 1996; 
Seager Smith and Fitzpatrick forthcoming). The 
airfield itself has recently been the subject of a 
number of watching briefs, surveys and excavations 
carried out by Archaeologists from DERA, Wessex 
Archaeology and AC archaeology. The results have 
proved beyond doubt that a rich archaeological 
landscape still survives within the airfield boundary. 
These discoveries have serious implications for 
development on such sites and have been 
commented on elsewhere (Clarke 2000). One 
discovery, however does warrant expansion at this 
point, a previously unrecorded burial mound 
surviving as an earthwork. 


BARROWS SITED ON 
BOSCOMBE DOWN 


A number of burial mounds survive on the airfield 
at Boscombe Down, all of which are under 
scheduled protection. These include three bowl 
barrows and one disc barrow. The Sites and 
Monuments Record also indicates nine barrows 


now removed; unfortunately only one was 
excavated, by Newall (1931, 432), before 
destruction in 1930.To this list must now be added 
one probable bowl barrow (Figure 1), surviving as 
an earthwork (situated at NGR SU 1773 4105). 


18 | 


| 

8 

| N 

| ae 

Lat New Barn Down . 
chee “el! 


ae 
e 28 ° 
eo 


Earl's Farm Down 


ee 


\ 


} ‘s >| 
/ Kae elt 
40 / : / 40-4 
; 5 1 
fos | | 
s Boscombe Down West | 
| oN | 
Lie 
| a ® \ NS \ 
A j \ \ 
° i“ y \ 
| \ \ ee a 
| X d & 
: \7 A 
i Ke \ 
| , | 
| ¢ on I | 


Fig. 1. Location of new monument in relation to existing 
cemeteries. Area shaded Boscombe Down Airfield 


Engineering Training Centre, Bldg. 814, DERA, Boscombe Down, Salisbury SP4 OJF 


216 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fig. 2. The newly discovered monument (light feature to centre of picture) 
DERA Boscombe Down © Crown Copyright 


Nature of discovery of the barrow 


The airfield at Boscombe Down has been the 
subject of much recent work, with a number of 
features being recognised, ranging from the Bronze 
Age through to the post-medieval period (Anon. 
1999, 132; 2000, 225; 2001, 243). The new barrow 
was discovered during fieldwork in 1996 on the 
northern sector of the site by the then Boscombe 
Down archaeologist, Colin Kirby. It was noted that 
the feature was partially overlain by the 
embankment of the now disused Amesbury to 
Newton Tony railway (Figure 2). The old security 
fence for the airfield runs parallel to the southern 
edge of this embankment, effectively sandwiching 
the barrow between it and the bank. In the 1970s, 
after track removal the security fence was moved 
up on to the top of the embankment placing the 
barrow another 25m into the site. This situation is 
probably the reason why the feature has never been 
recorded. 


Monument condition 


The barrow stands 0.65m high and has a maximum 
visible diameter of 25m. It is partially obscured by 


the railway embankment immediately north of the 
site and had until recently a small amount of 
security traffic driving over it. This threat to the 
monument has now been removed with the 
positioning of ‘no digging’ and vehicular access signs 
to stop all traffic. It is difficult to say whether the 
site has attracted antiquarian attention but it would 
have been likely considering the presence of other 
monuments in the area. A small depression located 
during the earthwork survey (Figure 3) may also 
point to this. The old perimeter fence respects the 
southern edge of the central mound but almost 
certainly impinges on any, now buried, features such 
as a ditch surrounding the monument. The area 
within the fence line was not surveyed as it appeared 
to be flat and featureless. It is still possible that 
archaeology does survive in a buried state within 
this area and all matters regarding this area should 
take this into account. 


The barrow and its environs 


DERA Boscombe Down lies in a rich archaeological 
landscape. A series of extensive field systems and 
linear ditches exist on and around the airfield which 
have been the subject of a number of surveys 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


(Wessex 1991; Bradley et al. 1994; Kirby et al. 1998; 
Clarke 1999). A large Iron Age settlement was 
located during construction of a second runway for 
the airfield (Richardson 1951), and to the west of 
the airfield evidence of later Neolithic and Bronze 
Age activity as well as a large undefended Roman 
settlement has recently been discovered (Rawlings 
and Fitzpatrick 1996; Seager Smith and Fitzpatrick 
forthcoming). 


Railway Enbankment 


¢ 
NG } We 6 > 
--~7 —_—- — d f  --- 
“SaUL2 eee 
SC) aS > 
Se ae ON See 
IS Ee \ N= "—— Fence Line 
oO 5m eae Sue ke 


Fig. 3. Earthwork survey of new monument 


A number of barrows, both on and off the 
airfield, have been investigated (Newall 1931; 
Christie 1964; Thomas 1956; Ashbee 1984), 
demonstrating internal structural differences in the 
construction of monuments within these 
cemeteries. Recent work on one monument within 
the airfield perimeter has suggested, using palaeo- 
environmental evidence, that a Neolithic rather than 
Bronze Age date may be possible for some 
structures (Wessex 2000). 

To the north of the airfield are situated the Earl’s 
Farm and New Barn Down barrows, a group of 
three dispersed linear cemeteries within a large area 
cemetery of the type suggested by Fleming (1971). 
These include many of the well known ‘Wessex’ 
forms, from the large bow] and bell types down to 
the more subtle saucer and disc barrows. The lower 
cemetery of the three runs north-east to south-west 
from SU 20 - 43 to SU 16 — 38 encompassing all 
the known tumuli on the airfield, including the new 
discovery. The evidence suggests that this lowest 
linear element follows the crest of the ridge which 
runs through Boscombe Down West. Taking this 
positioning into consideration, it is therefore 
proposed that Boscombe Down West contains the 
remnants of a dispersed linear cemetery. 

It is possible that these series of dispersed linear 
cemeteries form part of a third circuit focussing on 
Stonehenge, the first two having been suggested 


PAT 


by Woodward and Woodward (1996, 284, fig. 6). 
Although this suggested third circuit would not be 
visible from Stonehenge it has to be remembered 
that the Winterbourne Stoke Cross Roads Group, 
a fundamental element of the second proposed 
circuit, is also not intervisible from that monument. 


THE FUTURE 


The results from investigations over the last 60 years 
indicates the diversity of information which can still 
be recovered from such monuments. This has led 
to the ‘new’ barrow receiving protection, having 
been placed on the Scheduled Monuments Register 
(SM 31188) and the DERA Archaeological 
Management Plan. This monument should now be 
viewed as an addition to the proposed Boscombe 
Down West dispersed linear cemetery which is in 
turn one element of a large area cemetery to the 
east of Stonehenge. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Julian Richards, 
Peter Addison, Helena Cave-Penney and Andrew 
Fitzpatrick for their comments and suggestions 
during the identification process of this site. Special 
thanks go to Rachael Seager Smith of Wessex 
Archaeology for her much valued support and 
encouragement with this and other projects. 

The earthwork survey was carried out by first 
year mechanical apprentices with Tony van Crump 
from the Engineering Training Centre, DERA 
Boscombe Down whilst undertaking Key Skills 
qualifications. 

All unpublished reports are lodged with English 
Heritage and Wiltshire County Council. 

This report was created by DERA 
Archaeologists Bob Clarke and Colin Kirby. Any 
errors are naturally theirs. 


References 


ANON. 1999, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, 
WANHM 92, 133-143 

ANON. 2000, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, 
WANHM 93, 255-264 

ANON. 2001, Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire, 
WANHM 94, 243-255 

ASHBEE, P. 1984,The Excavation of Amesbury Barrows 
58, 61a, 61, 72, Amesbury. WANHM 79, 39-92 

BRADLEY, R., ENTWISTLE, R. and RAYMOND, F. 
1994, Prehistoric Land Divisions on Salisbury Plain: 
the work of the Wessex Linear Ditch Project. London: 


218 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


English Heritage 

CHRISTIE, P. 1964, A Bronze Age Round Barrow on 
Earl’s Farm Down, Amesbury. WANHM 59, 30-46 

CLARKE, B. 1999, Watching Brief and Excavation of a 
Romano-British Field Boundary at NGR 
SU18573956, Amesbury. Boscombe Down 
Conservation Group. Unpublished client report 4 

CLARKE, B. 2000, Peace Dividend Brings 
Archaeological Rewards. Antiquity 74, 277-278 

FLEMING, A. 1971, Territorial Patterns in Bronze Age 
Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 
138-167 

KIRBY, C. and CLARKE, B. 1998, The Introduction of 
a New Gas Distribution Meter at the East End of the 
Establishment of Boscombe Down. Boscombe Down 


Conservation Group. Unpublished client report 1 

NEWALL, R. 1931, Barrow 85 Amesbury. WANHM 45, 
432-458 

RAWLINGS, M.N. and FITZPATRICK, A.P. 1996, 
Prehistoric sites and a Romano-British Settlement at 
Butterfield Down. WANHM 89, 1-43 

THOMAS, N. 1956, Excavation and Fieldwork in 
Wiltshire 1956. WANHM 56, 231-252 

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY 2000, Remedial works to 
Bowl Barrow SM28939, DERA Boscombe Down. 
Unpublished client report 47200.1 

WOODWARD, A.B. and WOODWARD, P.J. 1996, The 
Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze 
Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 
62, 275-292 


A mid Saxon Disc-Brooch from Upavon 


by David A. Hinton 


The Society’s Museum acquired a small lead-alloy 
disc-brooch from Upavon in 1987, which was 
presented by the finder, Peter Humphreys (acc. No. 
1987.128.3). On the face of the brooch in relief is a 
crudely rendered bird with a cross below its beak, 
contained within a ladder-like border; the bird 
appears to have two legs ending in three claws, and 
two lines below its body may represent a wing; the 
body ends in a flourish, with a raised, barred tail. 
On the back of the brooch are the remains of lugs 
for the fitting of a pin. 

The brooch would be very difficult to date but 
for its similarity. to one from Hamwic, Saxon 
Southampton, where the finds can be dated within 
a general bracket of c.700 to c.900, except for those 
from recently excavated 7th-century graves in the 
north-eastern part of the settlement. The 
Southampton metalwork collection included only 
two disc-brooches when it was published (Hinton 
1996, 3-5). Both have bird designs; on one, the bird 
faces left, but the other faces right and has a cross 
below its beak, like the Upavon design. It is 
contained within concentric border circles, but does 
not have the ladder-like infill. It is, however, also 
made of lead, and similarity in both design and 


metal make it a parallel, certainly for date, tentatively 
for maker. 

Birds also feature on some of the Anglo-Saxon 
8th-century silver sceatta coinage, notably on one 
series attributed to a mint in Southampton because 


Lead-alloy disc-brooch from Upavon, Wiltshire, Wiltshire 
Heritage Museum accession number 1987.128.3. Drawn 
by Nick Griffiths. Scale 2:1 


of its distribution. On that basis, and in ignorance 
of the Upavon brooch, it was speculated that ‘some 
sense of a Southampton idiom was being expressed’ 
(Hinton 1996, 103). By bringing the Upavon 
brooch to my attention, Dr Paul Robinson has 
certainly dented that suggestion, but a nail had 


Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


already been driven into its coffin by the publication 
of an interim note from one of the London sites 
contemporary with Hamwic, which included not 
another brooch, but a bone mould from which such 
brooches were cast (Blackmore et al. 1998, 63). The 
London bird is a little fatter in body and has a ring- 
and-dot, not a cross, below its beak, and is encircled 
by a ring-and-dot border. So it is not the mould 
from which either the Southampton or the Upavon 
brooches were made, but it was certainly intended 
for producing very similar ones, and shows that such 
designs were not peculiar to Southampton, or even 
to Wessex. 

The Upavon brooch and the London mould 
seem to be the only additions to this very limited 
corpus. I have not noticed any other published 
examples, and there were none on the Portable 
Antiquities Scheme national database among the 
255 early medieval brooches recorded on its web- 
pages in October 2001. It remains uncertain 
whether such small dress items were made only in 


Clack Mount 
by Steven Hobbs 


219 


the ‘new’ towns like Southampton and London, and 
some found their way into the countryside to places 
like Upavon through exchanges of various sorts, or 
whether they were supplied by itinerant smiths, as 
the discovery of a die for making ring-and-dot 
ornament at Aldbourne suggests (Robinson 1994). 
This is one facet of the question of the extent to 
which the new centres were affecting the nature of 
mid Saxon society by introducing an element of 
urbanisation and commerce, and whether the 
Aldbournes and the Upavons of Wessex were 
acquiring manufactured items from them. 


References 


BLACKMORE, L., BOWSHER, D., COWIE, R., and 
MALCOLM, G., 1998, Royal Opera House. Current 
Archaeology 158, 60-3 

HINTON, D.A., 1996, The Gold, Silver and Other Non- 
Ferrous Alloy Objects from Hamwic. Stroud: Sutton 

ROBINSON, P.H., 1994, Devizes Museum. Council for 
British Archaeology Newsletter (April 1994), 24-5 


In a recent paper on Wiltshire castles (Creighton 
2000, 116) the author expresses scepticism of the 
accepted view, as propounded in the VCH Wilts. 
gazetteer (Grinsell 1957, 181), that Clack Mount 
at Bradenstoke (Lyneham) was a Norman motte. 
He suggests that it is more likely to be the remains 
of a much later garden feature. However a civil war 
document, which passed through Dominic Winter’s 
saleroom in Swindon on 11 April 2002, and a copy 
of which is in the Wiltshire and Swindon Record 
Office (WSRO X3/42), offers another possible 
explanation of this feature. It is an order from 
Nicholas Devereux, parliamentary governor of the 
garrison at Malmesbury, to Captain William More, 
dated 21 May 1645, instructing him to fortify and 
strengthen his garrison at Bradenstoke Priory. A 
transcript of it follows: 


Capt. William More you are to Com[m]Jaund the 
officers and soulldiers belonging to yo[u]r Garison 
at Brodstock Abey and the said Garison for the 
use of King and Parliement & to fortifie and 
streinthen yo[u]r said Garison w[i]th fortifications 
& workes to w[i]ch purpose you are to sum[m]on 
In the contrie to worke as alsoe to bring in beding 
and p[ro]visions for the Maintenance & support of 
yo[u]r said Garison & what ellce may seme 
nessesarie for the keeping & saftie of yo[u]r said 
garison & the ease & benefit of the Contrie 
considered you are w[i]th what sped you may to 
see p[er]formed till you shall Reseve further orders 
from me given under my hand at Malmesbury this 
21st of Maii 1645. Nich Devereux 


The document alone is not evidence of action, 
rather of the intention to act. Although the 


Wiltshire & Swindon Record Office, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge BA14 8BS 


220 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


published accounts of the garrisons at Chalfield 
and Malmesbury (Pafford 1940, 98) mention men 
stationed at Clack as well as More himself, this is 
only in relation to a garrison at Lechlade, and they 
are silent on the matter of work there. However 
the order should not be ignored and should be 
added to the slim body of information about the 
site. 


References 


CREIGHTON, O., 2000, Early castles in the medieval - 
landscape of Wiltshire, WANHM 93, 105-19 

GRINSELL, L.V. (ed.), 1957, Archaeological gazetteer, 
VCH Wilts vol.1 (1), 21-279 

PAFFORD, J.H.P. (ed.), 1940, Accounts of the 
Parliamentary garrisons of Great Chalfield and 
Malmesbury, 1645-1646 (WANHS Records Branch, 
vol. 2) 


A Curious Roof Modification at no. 47 The 


Close, Salisbury 
by Michael Heaton 


This note presents details of a roof-truss revealed 
during a watching brief maintained by the author 
at no. 47 The Close during the summer of 1998.A 
detailed report of the work has been deposited with 
the Wiltshire County Sites and Monuments Record, 
also available at www.archaeology.demon.co.uk/ 
3121.htm, while the archive (including an extensive 
photographic record) has been deposited with the 
Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum. 

The building displays a very complex history 
of use and structural modification, reflected, in part, 
by the DoE’s Listing entry of 1972 (DoE 1980), 
which alludes to a 14th-century origin, and the 
RCHMBP’s detailed description and chronological 
analysis (RCHME 1995).The latter places the bulk 
of the building’s structural development in the 17th 
century, beginning as a stable. 


DESCRIPTION 


Though the building has been described in detail 
by the RCHME (1995), it is pertinent to summarise 
the structure here. It is composed of two conjoined 
rectangular cells in the proportions two-thirds: one- 
third, reflected in variations in wall fabric and in 
the use of the attic space. The western third is 
entirely of brick and dated by the RCHME to the 
late-17th century, partly from documentary 
references to construction of a stable at this site. 


Though many additional features were observed 
during the watching brief, including evidence of 
an open-sided piered phase, internal water cisterns, 
a well and so forth, there is no reason to doubt the 
RCHMP’s basic chronology for this phase. 

The eastern, and earlier, cell is formed around 
three undecorated oak cross-frames resting on first 
floor rails above ground floor elevations of brick 
that appear to have underpinned the woodwork. 
‘Though the timber work appears uniform from the 
outside, many of the timbers have been re-faced 
externally, and each of the cross frames differs 
slightly. Frame 1, in the east gable and illustrated 
by the RCHME, has straight braces and two tiers 
of straight raking struts supported by a tie-beam 
and collar. Frame 3, formerly the western gable until 
the late-17th century, has two tiers of curved raking 
struts above the tie-beam and collar, of which one 
has been removed to form a door opening into the 
dormer attic over the western cell. 

Frame 2, alone, comprises blackened and axe- 
trimmed timbers and lacks horizontal tension 
members, though there are sockets in the principals. 
Instead, short ‘hammer’ beams rest on arch-braces 
which are tenoned into (later?) pit-sawn storey posts 
that intrude into the interior less than one metre 
from the outside walls, and extend upwards to half- 
lap against the principals. There are no hammer 
posts, and the ‘hammer’ beams appear 


ASI, Radley House, 1 East Street, Warminster, BA12 9BY 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


bo 
bo 
— 


No. 47 The Close, sketch plan and side elevation showing roof structure 


foreshortened. Unfortunately, neither the jointing 
detail nor the manner of truncation are accessible, 
though the end of the ‘hammer’ beam appears 
neatly cut. The ridge-height open space created by 
this arrangement has then been closed off again by 
the reconstruction of a first floor ceiling, using joists 
resting on the wall plates and housed into a massive 
axial beam, itself scarfed over an internal stud 
partition and supporting raking struts to the side 
purlins. 


INTERPRETATION 


This is a curious arrangement, for which there are 
many interpretations; two are entertained here. One 
is that Frame 2 was constructed as a hammer-beam 
truss or queen-post variant. These are relatively 
common in Salisbury, and this example is similar 
to the truss recorded by the RCHME in 1965 over 
the hall of Balle’s Place (RCHME 1980, no. 351), 
particularly in the foreshortening of its hammer 
beam to allow the upper arch brace to bear directly 
on the lower. If this assumption is correct, and the 
frame is original to this structure, no. 47 The Close 
is potentially 200 years older than the early-17th 
century date ascribed by the RCHME. However, 
why it should be necessary to replace the hammer/ 


queen posts with full height and inconvenient storey 
posts evades explanation. 

The other, by no means mutually exclusive, 
but more intriguing possibility is that Frame 2 was 
a simple tie-beam and collar truss, similar to the 
16th-century examples at no. 93 Castle Street 
(ibid., no. 443) from which the horizontal 
members have been removed to create a ridge- 
height open interior supported, perhaps later, by 
the storey posts. Though the purpose of this 
modification is not readily apparent, it would not 
lend itself to use as a dwelling or a stable. An 
industrial or craft use seems unlikely, one that 
required two clear storeys of headroom, but the 
author is at a loss with regard to specifics. That 
this modification affects only Frame 2 suggests 
that it preceded extension of the building in the 
late 17th century. Re-closure of the attic space, 
necessitating insertion of the massive beam to 
support joists that could no longer be tensioned, 
probably accompanied dormer conversion of the 
west end, which the RCHME places in the 18th 
century. The inference to be drawn is that no. 47 
The Close was, prior to its extension in the late- 
17th century, modified to accommodate a specific 
non-domestic use of a form not hitherto addressed 
by published building histories. 


222 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


References 


DoE 1980, List of Buildings of Special Architectural or 
Historical Interest: Salisbury. Dept of the Environment 


RCHME 1980, City of Salisbury: volume 1, Ancient and 
Historical Monuments. London: HMSO 

RCHME 1995, Salisbury: the buildings of The Close. 
London: HMSO 


Fir Clump Stone Circle — a correction 


by Aubrey Burl’ 


In The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany 
(Yale U.P., 2000, 413) the diameters of the concentric 
circle at Fir Clump, Burderop Wood (SU 161814), 
destroyed during the construction of the M4, were 
cited as 115 x 94m. The measurements were 
calculated from a photocopy of the plan kindly sent 
to the author by the National Monuments Record. 


The ring’s surveyor, Mr R.H. Reiss, informs me 
that the exact dimensions were 107 x 86.5m. The 
outer ring was fragmentary, but enough remained 
of the inner ring to see that it was flattened to the 
north and measured 86.5 x 73.7m. About 125m 
to the west of the circle was a single row of stones 
aligned NNW-SSE. It was 102m long. 


The Glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca, (Linnaeus, 
1758)) in Wiltshire: an Update 


by Michael Darby’ 


Following the appearance of my note in WANHM, 
94, 2001, I have received more than thirty new 
records which help to answer some of the questions 
raised earlier. Both old and new records have been 
incorporated on the attached distribution map, which 
also shows major geological features. It will be 
apparent, immediately, that the glow-worm is much 
more widely established in the county than the initial 
set of records suggested. Furthermore, it is also clear 
that its occurrence does not appear to be 
concentrated either on areas of woodland or on areas 
of calcareous grassland, but on a much wider range 
of habitats including gardens and cultivated land. 
Suggestions that the beetle may live in association 


with water also seem to be refuted. Given that glow- 
worms are known to feed on at least 22 different 
species of snails and slugs living in widely dispersed 
and differing habitats, perhaps this explains the 
spread. (Although, because snails require calcium 
for their shells they are found more frequently in 
calcareous areas.) Several observers have reported 
that on the sites where glow-worms occur they are 
confined to a small area, or areas, completely ignoring 
others which appear identical, thus suggesting that 
local factors may also apply. 

The most surprising revelation is the absence of 
records from the Salisbury Plain Training Area, and 
to a lesser extent, from the north of the county. The 


' 2 Woodland Road, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2HS * The Old Malthouse, Sutton Mandeville, Salisbury SP3 5ND 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


223 


4 Pre 1987 
s Post 1987 
= 
Limestone 
Te. 
| 
z 
. "" 
* : 
s 
| 
2 
ze 
a 
| 


iS 


Chalk 


Chalk 
| 
g 
EI 
a 
@ 
F | 
@ 
& 
@ 
| 
oS 
Es 
Chaik 


Glow-worm records in Wiltshire (copyright Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre) 


Number of sightings of glow-worms arranged by months of the year* 


Mar Apr May 
Ay 2 8 


Jun 
8 


Jul Aug 
20 2 


224 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


latter is probably accounted for by the lack of 
recorders, but can that also be true for the SPTA? 
More work is clearly needed here. I should add that 
a field trip I led on what seemed to be a perfect 
evening for seeing glow-worms (21 June 2001) to 
the Weather Hill Firs area of the SPTA failed to 
produce a single record. 

Another important factor confirmed by the new 
records is that in Wiltshire the insect seems to be 
present on the sites where it has been found in small 
numbers only (compared with the several hundred 
on sites nearer London). Almost all the records are 
of singletons or of concentrations of less than six. 
The highest numbers reported have been those of 
D.Russell, 43 at Bentley Wood; K.French, ‘Lots’ at 
Great Bedwyn; R.Scagell 20 at Seend; and S.Palmer 
15 at Grovely Wood. Interestingly, the Bentley Wood 
population was surveyed for two consecutive years 
and formed the subject of two articles in Nature 
Notes (1996, by Jim Roquette, who initiated the 
study, and 1997, by Debbie Russell) where it is noted 
that numbers varied considerably from one year to 
the next. Changes in weather conditions were 
suggested as a possible cause. 


Finally, the bulk of the new records, as the 
diagram below shows, occurred in July thus 
confirming this as the most popular month for 
observing the beetle. 


In repeating my earlier plea for more records could 
Istress the need for more precise information about 
both localities (a six figure map reference is 
adequate) and dates of observation, together, of 
course, with the numbers seen at any one time. 
These may be sent either to my home address or to 
the Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records 
Centre, Elm Tree Court, Long Street, Devizes, 
SN10 1NH. For those interested to know more 
about these fascinating insects I would recommend 
John Tyler’s booklet: Glow-worms, 1994, (available 
from the author at Tadorna, Bradbourne Vale Road, 
SEVENOAKS, Kent TN13 3DH.) 


* Total number of records appears low because many of 
those received have included the year but not the month 
of observation. 


Steam Cultivation in Wiltshire during the First 


World War 


Peter Donovan 


This note has been written in response to Ivor 
Slocombe’s paper on ‘Agriculture in Wiltshire in 
the First World War’ (WANHM 95, 2001, 69-88). 
It is the writer’s submission that, in referring to 
steam ploughing, the paper may have 
underestimated the numbers and capability of 
ploughing engines. Mr Slocombe asserts that: ‘some 
steam ploughing took place, mainly through a few 
large contractors’.! That there were contractors is 
true, but a substantial number of sets were owned 
by farmers where there is no indication that they 
also undertook contract work. In total there may 
have been as many as 46 owners of steam ploughing/ 
cultivation tackle sets in Wiltshire during the First 
World War.’ 


The figure for tackle available for use is almost 
certainly lower, as some of the equipment was from 
the very early days. The number of ploughing 
engines owned by these 46 owners was 112, of 
which 99 had been manufactured by John Fowler 
& Co., at the Steam Plough Works, Leeds. The other 
engines came from Aveling & Porter at Rochester, 
Burrell at Thetford, and Kitson of Leeds.’ 

Reference is made by Mr Slocombe to Arthur 
Stratton of Alton Priors owning five sets of 
ploughing engines.*? This is quite correct, but he 
almost certainly had a sixth set. During 1915 the 
Steam Cultivation Development Association was 
formed. Arthur Stratton joined on the 29 March 
1915. At the time of joining Mr. Stratton listed six 


57 Hallsfield, Cricklade SN6 6LR 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


sets, one of which is shown as ‘Government’.? The 
Government sets were sent by the Ministry of 
Munitions to selected farms. They were purchased 
on special terms of c.£3,000, appreciably less than 
a private purchase. Some care is needed with the 
SCDA returns, as although the subscription was 
£1 per two-engine set, some owners such as S. W. 
Farmer & Co., of Little Bedwyn, registered no sets,° 
although up to six sets were in their ownership 
during the First World War.’ The known owners of 
ploughing engines in Wiltshire are not well 
represented in the SCDA list. Probably the 
formation of the Association was just too late, a 
reaction to the arrival of the tractor. Mr Slocombe 
makes the point that in April 1918 there were 93 
tractors working in Wiltshire, and during that month 
they ploughed 5,442 acres.® 

Caution is required when researching Samuel 
William Farmer of Little Bedwyn, Arthur Stratton 
and William Bowle Gauntlett. For many years they 
were in partnership. They worked not only their 
own farms, but substantial acreages in the Vale of 
Pewsey, the upper Avon valley, and in the Wylye 
valley around Norton Bavant. 

Wiltshire at the start of the First World War had 
16,501 horses being used for agricultural purposes.° 
By the end of the war, the tractor was seriously 
indicating the end for steam cultivation and 
ploughing. Steam threshing would also be affected, 
but that is another subject. 

When considering the value of steam ploughing 
and cultivation, it is clear that real benefit applies 
to the large arable farms, where the c.500 yard steel 
rope capacity of the drum would be utilised on large 
fields. A horse might plough 4 acres in a day; the 
relatively new tractors with a three-furrow plough 


225 


10 acres; the double-engine steam plough tackle 
16 acres. A steam plough set could also drag or 
harrow 40 acres in-a day.'° In the soft soil of East 
Anglia, 60 acres could be dragged or harrowed in a 
day. Steam plough and cultivating tackle at work, 
operated by a skilled team was not cumbersome, 
but a highly efficient operation. 

In comparing horse with steam a test by the 
Royal Agricultural Society, using Messrs. Fowler 
and Co’s apparatus, is of interest. This showed that 
on light land, the turnover of soil was 2.5% to 25% 
more efficient with the Fowler machine, while on 
heavy land the machine was 25-30% more 
efficient.'! 

In April 1918, while the 93 tractors ploughed 
5,442 acres, there were at least 35 sets of steam 
ploughing tackle available in Wiltshire, with the 
theoretical potential to plough c.17,360 acres. 


Notes 


Slocombe 2001, 70. The detailed referencing of Mr 
Slocombe’s paper is noted with pleasure and approval. 

2 Road Locomotive Society: Engine owner’s list for 

Wiltshire. 

3 Ibid. 

Slocombe 2001, 79; WSRO 853/41. 

Rural History Centre, Reading: Steam Cultivation 
Development Association registers. 

6 Ibid. 

7 RLS lists. 

8 Slocombe 2001, 81. 

9 

1 


_ 


an & 


Ibid., 70. 
0 Information from Mr. W. Smith, late information 
officer for the Steam Plough Club. 
11 Information from Royal Agricultural Society catalogues 
cited on www.steamploughclub.org.uk 


A Romano-British figurine of Mercury from 


near Durnford 
by Martin Henig 


A figurine depicting the god Mercury was brought 
to Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum for 


recording and has recently been acquired. The 
figurine, which stands some 7.8cm in height, is cast 


Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont St., Oxford OX1 2PG 


226 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Romano-British figure of Mercury from near Durnford. Scale 1:1 (Drawn by Nick Griffiths) 


in a leaded bronze. It is in good condition apart 
from some surface wear, which has, for example, 
rendered the face a little indistinct, perhaps as a 
result of handling. His body is largely nude, though 
his paenula (cloak) covers his left arm and hangs 
down his side to the lower calf. The body is well 
modeled, even on the back where the spine and 
buttocks are clearly delineated. Mercury has 
prominent wings, which seem to sprout directly 
from his head rather than from a petasos (cap). In 
his left hand, which is hidden by the paenula, he 
holds his serpent-headed herald’s staff (caduceus). 
The upper part of the handle appears to have a 
twisted ‘corkscrew’ stem, and the usual double- 
curved terminal of the object is here ornamentally 
embellished with a series of depressions. The very 
stylised heads of the snakes have crests. The god’s 
right arm hangs down near his side and his hand 
clutches a moneybag. 

Mercury is most frequently portrayed with a 
paenula hung over one arm or else totally nude, as 
in the case of the example from Brixton Deverill 
(Henig 1997), but he is sometimes shown totally 
enveloped in a paenula as though travelling on a 
journey, as is the case with two figurines from 
Lamyatt Beacon, Somerset (Henig 1986, 277-9, 
nos.2 and 3). The version represented by the 
Durnford bronze displaying an ample paenula 
which, nevertheless, does not cover the god’s nudity, 


is rather more unusual in Britain and the Western 
provinces, although there is a good example from 
the temple of Mercury at Uley, Gloucestershire 
(Henig 1993, 99, fig. 85 no.4). Stephanie Boucher 
(1976, 83 and 101) ascribed the origins of this type 
to the mid-5th-century BC sculptor Polycleitos and 
sees them as being on the whole Italian imports. 
However, the fact that this bronze, unlike the various 
comparanda assembled by Boucher, lacks the 
petasos and the patterned treatment of the caduceus 
points to a more local origin. It is by no means 
unlikely that this bronze was cast in Britain, a 
province that certainly seems to have had a 
distinguished tradition of casting bronzes (Henig 
1995,126-9). 

As for the caduceus, comparison may be made 
with two examples from Uley, which are probably 
votive and of copper-alloy and silver respectively 
(Henig 1993, 102-3, figs 89 and 90). These likewise 
have corkscrew stems and terminate in clearly 
delineated serpent heads. 

There is nothing to indicate the date of the 
bronze, but most scholars would be happy to ascribe 
it to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. It is hard to say 
where a casual find such as this may have come 
from. Although a temple is a possibility, Mercury 
as guardian of flocks and herds and guardian of . 
trading and travelling ventures would have been a 
popular inhabitant of house shrines (Jararia). The 


NOTES AND SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 


signs of wear suggest that it was an image much 
handled and venerated by its owner, perhaps 
indicating such a domestic context. 


References 


BOUCHER, S., 1976, Recherches sur les bronzes figures 
de Gaule pre-romaine et romaine. Rome: Ecole 
Francaise 

HENIG, M., 1986, ‘The statuary and figurines’, in R. 


22th 


Leech, The Excavation of a Romano-Celtic Temple 
on Lamyatt Beacon, 274-81. Britannia 17, 259- 
328 

HENIG, M., 1993, ‘Votive objects’, in A. Woodward and 
P. Leach, The Uley Shrines, 88-112. London: English 
Heritage, Archaeological Report 17 

HENIG, M., 1995, The Art of Roman Britain. London: 
Batsford 

HENIG, M., 1997, A figurine of Mercury from Brixton 
Deverill. WAHNM 90, 143-5 


Breton Melchi, ‘Prince-Hound’, and Melksham 


by Andrew Breeze 


Melksham (ST 9063) in west Wiltshire has been a 
problem for place-name scholars. It figures in 
Domesday and elsewhere as Melchesham, 
explained as containing Old English meoluc 
(‘milk’), and thus perhaps meaning ‘homestead 
(or enclosure) of milk’. Like Melchbourne (‘milk 
bourne, stream by pastures yielding good milk’) in 
Bedfordshire, or Mulbarton (‘milk barton, outlying 
milk- or dairy-farm’) in Norfolk, Melksham was 
supposedly known for its milk (Mills 1991, 227, 
236). Yet this explanation has never quite convinced 
commentators. First, the genitive in —es of 
Melchesham is hard to account for, since it does 
not occur in other toponyms with meoluc, ‘milk’. 
Second, this area was once thickly wooded, 
Melksham Forest being one of the ancient royal 
forests of Wiltshire (Grant 1959, 407-14). There 
are no woods by Melksham now, but the names 
within a few miles of it, such as Shaw, Forest Farm, 
Melksham Forest, Blackmore Forest and Holt, still 
betray this aspect of its past. Royal forests produced 
venison and wild boar, not milk. Hence the 
difficulty. 

Another approach appears better. Melksham 
seems rather to parallel Brianis Pedele, ‘Brian’s 
estate on the River Piddle’ (Briantspuddle, Dorset), 
Cyngresburi, ‘Congar’s stronghold’ (Congresbury, 
North Somerset), or Deusberia, ‘Dewi’s stronghold’ 
(Dewsbury, West Yorkshire) in possessing a Celtic 


personal name that qualifies a landscape feature 
(Mills 1991, 50, 89, 105). Ifso Melchesham could 
be related to Old Welsh Meilic (= Middie Welsh 
Meilyg) and — better — its Old Breton cognate 
Melchi, ‘prince-hound, princely-hound’ (Padel 
1988, 209). Celticists are familiar with Welsh Meilyg 
and its variant Maelgwn from Maelgwn (died 547), 
the Gwynedd tyrant denounced in the De Excidio 
Britanniae of Gildas; and Sir Ifor Williams lucidly 
showed that Meilyg derives from the British 
nominative form *Maglocu, ‘prince-hound’, with 
Maelgwn simply being from *Maglocunos, the 
same name in the genitive (Williams 1972, 10). 

The old nominative Meilic figures in early 
documents in the 12th-century Book of Llandaff, 
as also in the 11th-century Mabinogion tale of 
Culhwch and Olwen (Davies 1979, 179; Bromwich 
and Evans 1992, 8, 77). Yet it hardly appears in 
Melchesham. Here is surely its Old or Middle 
Breton equivalent Melchi, which appears with this 
(then somewhat innovative) spelling in a 9th- 
century document in the 11th-century Cartulary 
of Redon (Jackson 1953, 461, n2). 

So Melksham’s name seems to refer to a Breton 
whose homestead (or enclosure) it was. Many 
Bretons came to England with the Conqueror, and 
some even before, like Ralf ‘the Staller’, to whom 
Edward the Confessor granted estates in East 
Anglia. In Yorkshire and other areas they mingled 


Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad de Navarra, 31080 Pamplona, Spain 


228 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


with Normans and Flemings in almost equal 
numbers (Stenton 1971, 425-6; Le Patourel 1976, 
23, 74, 216, nl; Barrow 1980, 106). Bretons left 
their mark with such English toponyms as: 
Bryanston, Dorset (Brian is a Breton name); 
Buckland Dinham, Somerset (cf Dinan, Brittany); 
Helion Bumpstead, Essex (cf Helléan near Ploermel 
in central Brittany); and Jolby (“homestead of Johel’ 
< Breton Judhael) near Croft, North Yorkshire 
(Ekwall 1960, 71, 72, 74, 268). 

It is true that Breton Melchi occurs as early as 
the 9th century. Yet Domesday’s Melchesham 
indicates a recently coined toponym. Its Breton 
features would not otherwise be so well preserved. 
Melksham thus does not provide evidence for Celtic 
survival in England, unlike most Celtic place-names 
(Coates and Breeze 2000). It points in contrast to 
possession of a settlement (recorded soon after the 
event) by an immigrant to 11th-century England, 
where its closest analogy is Helion Bumpstead in 
north-west Essex, held according to Domesday 
Book by Tihel de Helléan and still bearing his name 
(Ekwall 1960, 268; Le Patourel 1976, 216, n1). 

It should be noted, however, that Melksham was 
a substantial royal possession in 1066 and gave its 
name to a hundred. This would suggest that, like 
such other Wiltshire hundredal centres as Bradford, 
Chippenham, Malmesbury, and Warminster, it was 
a significant place before the 11th century (John 
Chandler, pers, comm.). Although the early history 
of Melksham is obscure, it is possible that any 
Breton (or Cornishman?) called Melchi lived there 
long before 1066, though hardly before the 9th 
century, for philological reasons. 

Melchesham, then, can be explained as the 
settlement or enclosure of Melchi, whose Middle 
Breton name derives from British *Maglocu, 


“prince-hound’. That this foreign form here survives 
undistorted suggests Melksham in 1086 may have 
been a recent settlement. The presence of a Breton 
there at that time would in any case indicate a man 
loyal to the new regime. However, it remains 
possible that Melchi lived at Melksham before the 
Conquest, perhaps in the early 11th century or even 
the 10th century, when Athelstan of Wessex forged 
strong links with Brittany. Philology thus provides 
evidence for the early history of the Forest of 
Melksham (Melchi perhaps being its forester or one 
of its foresters). It also means an association with 
milk, implying Melksham began as a dairy-farm, 
can be dismissed. 


References 


BARROW, G.W.S., 1980, The Anglo-Norman era in 
Scottish history (Oxford) 

BROMWICH, R., and EVANS, D.S. (eds.), 1992, 
Culhwch and Olwen (Cardiff) 

COATES, R., and BREEZE, A., 2000, Celtic voices, 
English places (Stamford) 

DAVIES, W., 1979, The Llandaff charters (Aberystwyth) 

ERKWALL, E., 1960, The concise Oxford dictionary of 
English place-names; 4th ed. (Oxford) 

GRANT, R., 1959, ‘Forests’, in VCH Wilts, vol. 4, 391- 
457 

JACKSON, K.H., 1953, Language and history in early 
Britain (Edinburgh) 

LE PATOUREL, J., 1976, The Norman empire (Oxford) 

MILLS, A.D., 1991, A dictionary of English place-names 
(Oxford UP) 

PADEL, O.J., 1988, A popular dictionary of Cornish 
place-names (Penzance) 

STENTON, F.M., 1971, Anglo-Saxon England; 3rd. ed. 
(Oxford) 

WILLIAMS, I., 1972, The beginnings of Welsh poetry 
(Cardiff) 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 229-237 


Excavation and Fieldwork in Wiltshire 2001 


Amesbury 

Boscombe Down FSTA (SU 1700 4000); Bronze 
Age, Iron Age and Modern 

An archaeological field evaluation of 12 proposed 
redevelopment areas was carried out by AC 
archaeology. The investigated areas were situated 
in various locations throughout the airbase, 
positioned on generally grassed open space between 
existing facilities. The evaluation revealed 
substantial areas of modern ‘cut and fill’, 
particularly adjacent to runways and taxiways. In 
many trenches there was frequent modern 
disturbance, principally by cables, drains and so 
forth. Extensive archaeological activity was 
identified in the eastern portion of the site, which 
is clearly an extension of the early Iron Age 
settlement evidence recorded during excavations 
on the airbase in 1949 (Richardson 1951). In 
contrast to the earlier work, where large storage pits 
and working areas were recorded, smaller features 
such as postholes and pits were identified during 
this evaluation, many containing quantities of 
pottery, flint and animal bone. In the western 
portion of the site linear ditches were identified. 
These are part of a network of similar features, some 
of which are associated with field systems extending 
across the surrounding landscape, identified as 
representing major prehistoric land divisions of late 
Bronze Age and early Iron Age date. 


RICHARDSON, K., 1951, The excavation of Iron Age 
villages on Boscombe Down West. WANHM 54, 
123-68 


Ansty 

The Guest House of The Knights of St John, Ansty 
Manor (ST 9558 2632); Medieval 

An archaeological watching brief was undertaken 
by AC archaeology during construction work. The 
work involved the removal and replacement of the 
existing roof and gable walls, reopening of a blocked 


doorway and windows, and groundworks to 
improve drainage and relieve damp. Re-used 
medieval architectural fragments were recovered 
from the fabric of the structure. Close to the north- 
east corner of the guest house a stone pedestal base 
for a hand-drawn water pump was revealed. 


Avebury 
Avebury Chapel (SU 1027 6950); Prehistoric and 
Post-Medieval 
During the summer of 2001 and March 2002, 
Oxford Archaeology (OA — formerly Oxford 
Archaeological Unit, OAU) undertook work at the 
United Reformed Church. OA were commissioned 
by Donovan Construction (SW Ltd) on behalf of 
the United Reformed Church and Kennet District 
Council to undertake the archaeological work. 
The excavations were carried out in advance of 
the construction of a lean-to extension and 
associated services, that forms part of plans to 
convert this 17th-century chapel into a tourist 
information centre. A building survey was also 
carried out as part of the requirement for 
archaeological monitoring by English Heritage. 
Footings for a former boiler-house were revealed 
on the site of the foundation trenches for the lean- 
to extension. The service trench around the south 
and west sides of the chapel was excavated through 
previously disturbed ground; the only feature of 
note was a cat burial of Victorian or later date. 
The excavation and watching brief following the 
service trench from the north-west side of the chapel 
to the mains sewer revealed an undated posthole 
beneath a cobbled surface of probable post- 
medieval date. A possible property or boundary wall 
had been truncated for the construction of the 
surface, which was itself cut by a later rubbish pit. 
One large pit (some 5.35m wide) was of particular 
significance in that it may once have held one of 
the standing stones within the henge, many of which 
were remeved in order to construct the village. A 


230 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


number of ancillary brick structures were also 
revealed, all of Victorian date. 


High Street (SU 1009 6988); Modern 

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by 
Southern Electric to carry out archaeological 
observations on a trench that had been dug in the 
course of emergency work to the electricity supply 
at High Street, Avebury. The observations identified 
that the trench was within pre-existing service 
trenches and that no archaeological deposits had 
been disturbed. 


Silbury Hill (SU 100 685); Neolithic 

Fieldwork was carried out by and for English 
Heritage as part of a programme of investigation 
initiated after the collapse of part of a central vertical 
shaft dug in 1776. The principal components were: 
a seismic survey and the extraction of five cores 
through the hill by Cementation Skanska; a detailed 
topographic and analytical survey of Silbury and 
its local setting; and small-scale archaeological 
investigation and recording on the summit, carried 
out with the assistance of AC archaeology. 


Fig. 1. Silbury Hill: chalk walling on summit 


Complementary information from the coring 
and topographic survey has demonstrated that the 
true height of the built mound is between 31-34m 
depending upon the fall of the underlying natural 
ground surface. The work on the summit revealed 
part of a substantial chalk wall 2.3m wide (Figure 
1), quite unlike the ‘walls’ proposed by Professor 
Atkinson after his work in 1968-70. 

Two antler fragments found during this work 
have provided four radiocarbon dates calibrated to 
2490-2310 BC. Also recovered was a single Beaker 
sherd, a Roman coin and ceramics, and metalwork 
dating from the mid-12th century AD. 


Bishopstone (north) 

Hinton Parva: City Corner (SU 2295 8344); Saxon 
Two sherds of grass-tempered pottery were found 
during fieldwalking by Bernard Phillips and others. 


Lammy Down (SU 243 814); Bronze Age, Iron Age 
and Roman 

Fieldwork by Bernard Phillips and others located a 
concentrated scatter of 2nd- to 4th-century pottery 
and single Bronze Age and Iron Age sherds in a 
field system revealed on aerial photographs. 


Blunsdon St Andrew 

Between Blunsdon Hill Reservoir and Farmoor 
Reservoir (Oxon.) (SU 147 902 to SP 452 065); 
Iron Age, Saxon and Undated 

A programme of archaeological recording was 
carried out by Cotswold Archaeological Trust prior 
to, and during, pipeline construction by Thames 
Water. An evaluation and subsequent excavation 
near Broad Blunsdon (at SU 164 909) revealed an 
Iron Age ditch and Anglo-Saxon pottery and 
structural remains, which together suggest the 
presence of a sunken-floored building. A series of 
small, undated stone quarries was also found. A 
subsequent watching-brief revealed no significant 
archaeological features within the Wiltshire section 
of the pipeline route. 


Abbeymeads Business Park (SU 1440 8970); 
?Prehistoric, 7Roman, Medieval 

Following earlier field evaluation (see Excavation 
and Fieldwork 2000: WANHM 95, 289), Cotswold 
Archaeological Trust carried out the excavation of 
ac.1.5ha area. A number of archaeological features . 
were identified across the site, including stakeholes, 
postholes, gullies, ditches and pits. The majority of 


EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 


the features appeared to relate to medieval 
agricultural activity. The line of an undated (possibly 
Roman) metalled trackway previously identified in 
the evaluation was also defined. Artefactual material 
from the excavation was very scarce: the small 
assemblage that was recovered included medieval 
pottery and pieces of struck flint. 


Bradford on Avon 

Barton Bridge (ST 8225 6054); Medieval and 
Modern 

Collation of publicly available cartographic and 
documentary sources pertaining to the history of 
construction and maintenance of Barton Bridge, a 
Scheduled Monument assigned a 14th-century 
date, suggests that the cutwaters are a later medieval 
addition whilst the entirety of the paved footway 
and as much as 70% of the facework of the bridge 
has been replaced since 1881. The results also 
suggests that the Small Footbridge, now joined to 
the south-east end of the main bridge by a long 
causeway/glacis, is a mid 1 9th-century addition, and 
that the original paved approach to the east end of 
the main bridge might survive beneath the existing 
footway. The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage 
Consultants. 


Bromham 

St Nicholas’s Church (ST 9630 6518); Post- 
Medieval 

Observations during groundworks associated with 
the construction of a toilet annex to the south porch 
of St Nicholas’s church during July and August of 
2002, revealed deep deposits of undifferentiated 
sandy subsoil containing post-medieval artefacts 
and disarticulated bone. The work was undertaken 
by ASI Heritage Consultants. 


Calne 

Quemerford Mill (SU 008 696); Medieval and Post- 
Medieval 

An archaeological evaluation by Cotswold 
Archaeological Trust prior to the redevelopment of 
the site for housing revealed archaeological deposits 
in two trenches. Undated cultivation furrows were 
uncovered in one trench, possibly associated with 
a medieval field system previously identifed to the 
north of the site, and adjacent to the mill itself, the 
line of the former mill pond was identified. Recent 
development of large parts of the site had severely 


251 


truncated the former ground surfaces, thus no other 
archaeologically significant deposits were observed 
in the remaining trenches. 


Charlton (north) 

Between Easton Grey and Minety (ST 8960 8790 
to SU 0360 8960); Roman 

A programme of fieldwalking and geophysical 
survey by Network Archaeology, in advance of a 
‘Transco Gas pipeline, identified extensive anomalies 
interpreted as a previously unrecorded villa 
complex, and a concentration of 2nd- to 4th- 
century finds. The pipeline was re-routed to avoid 
the main part of the complex and pre-emptive 
excavations were undertaken by Cotswold 
Archaeological Trust where the pipeline impinged 
upon outlying areas. Two ditched trackways, several 
isolated pits and postholes, a four-post structure, 
two small enclosures up to 7m in diameter, and 
ditches belonging to at least two phases of field 
system were identified. Excavation of these features, 
the majority of which did not show on the 
geophysical survey, produced finds including 
tesserae and 2nd- to 4th-century pottery. No other 
features of archaeological interest were recorded 
from the route. 


Chippenham 
Rear of 21-23 High Street (SU 92120 73340); 
Medieval/Post-Medieval 
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Kings 
Oak South West to carry out an archaeological 
evaluation of an area of land to the rear of 21-23 
High Street. The evaluation consisted of two 
machine-excavated trial trenches. Twenty features 
were found, of which 12 were a product of modern 
disturbance. Two of these modern features and all 
but one of the remainder were excavated. 
Archaeological features and deposits included a 
medieval (12th/13th century) ditch terminal 
(possibly part of a burgage boundary), three post- 
medieval cess/rubbish pits and another pit of 
uncertain date. A post-medieval limestone wall and 
floor and another wall and drain were also recorded 
as well as modern disturbance in both trenches. 
The possible line of the Saxon defences, which 
are postulated to run through or near the 
development area, was not present within the two 
evaluation trenches. The current consensus is that 
the burh ditch ran along the 50m contour and the 
site is just below this level, so, if there is a ditch 


232 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


around the Saxon core of Chippenham, then it is 
most likely to be a short distance to the south of 
the development area. The possibility of an earlier 
burial ground/church on the site of the present 
Baptist (and 17th-century Quaker) chapel was not 
confirmed by this evaluation. 


Chiseldon 

East of Badbury (SU 1994 8055); Roman, Medieval 
and Post-Medieval 

Fieldwalking by Bernard Phillips and others located 
a scatter of Romano-British, medieval and post- 
medieval pottery. 


Codford 

East Codford Farm, Codford St Mary (SU 975 
398); Post-Medieval 

In accordance with Listed Building Consent and 
Planning Permission for demolition and re- 
placement of the kitchen wing to East Codford 
Farmhouse at Codford St Mary, during February 
2002, observations and photographic recording of 
the affected fabric were made. Observations suggest 
that part of the kitchen wing and the stack it 
enclosed represented an earlier phase of the 
farmhouse that had been largely destroyed by fire 
during the mid-20th century. The work was 
undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. 


Compton Bassett 

St. Swithin’s Church (SU 0310 7160); Medieval 
An archaeological evaluation was carried out by AC 
archaeology, which comprised the excavation of a 
single trench within the angle formed by the west 
tower and the south aisle of the church. Excavations 
uncovered a stone culvert, that was found to be an 
integral part of the 13th-century aisle wall. This 
overlay three inhumations, aligned east-west and 
likely to date between the foundation of the church 
in the 11th century and the construction of the aisle 
in the 13th century. 


Cricklade 

North-west of St. Mary’s, North Wall (SU 1005 
9390); Undated 

In September 2001, Oxford Archaeology undertook 
a watching brief at land north-west of St Mary’s. 
The site is north-west of an earlier development, 
which was also the subject of a watching brief by 


OA in November 2000 (WANHM 95, 283). During 
the earlier watching brief, evidence for Roman 
activity and a potential Roman structure was 
revealed. During this present development, a 
number of large features of uncertain date were 
recorded, three of which were tentatively interpreted 
as quarry pits. 


Devizes 

24 & 25 The Brittox (SU 0055 6145); Post- 
Medieval 

An archaeological evaluation by Cotswold 
Archaeological Trust prior to the construction of a 
new extension at the rear of the commercial 
premises revealed a pit and wall footings of a 
building, both of mid to late 17th-century date. No 
medieval or earlier deposits or structures were 
revealed. 


Downton 

Downton Tannery (SU 1800 2150); Early 20th 
Century 

A programme of building recording and industrial 
archaeology was undertaken by Oxford Archaeology 
at Downton Tannery prior to its partial demolition 
and partial conversion to retirement flats. The main 
tannery complex is believed to have been constructed 
in two initial phases (1910 and 1919) and, although 
it underwent some modernisation in its early decades, 
particularly the adoption of electric power, it then 
appears to have undergone relatively little significant 
investment in the second half of the 20th century. 
When it closed in 1998, therefore, it remained as a 
very well preserved early 20th-century tannery, 
retaining many of its original features. 

The most prominent building was a four-storey, 
brick-built block which formed the main entrance 
to the tannery and which housed, among other 
things, the company offices on the ground floor and 
drying rooms above this. To the north of this block 
was a large shed with Belfast trusses which housed 
the main tanning processes. Among the features 
which survived within this area were a water wheel, 
line-shafting, cast iron columns with line-shafting 
brackets, tanning and liming pits, vats and rotating 
drums. 


Downton Tannery (SU 1800 2150); Early 20th 
Century 

In January 2001 Oxford Archaeology undertook a 
watching brief at Downton Tannery. The site has 


EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 


already been the subject of a comprehensive 
building survey by OA (see above), but provision 
for a watching brief during the groundworks was 
attached to the planning permission due to the 
potential disturbance of below-ground 
archaeological deposits, and in order to monitor 
the demolition of the existing structures. All deposits 
observed during the watching brief appeared to be 
associated with the early 20th-century tannery. 


Durrington 

Horne and Roberts Barracks, Larkhill (SU 12550 
44550); Modern 

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by the 
Defence Estates to undertake an archaeological 
evaluation prior to the construction of temporary 
accommodation on land to the west of Watson Road 
at Horne and Roberts Barracks, the Royal School 
of Artillery, Larkhill. The site lies within 100m of 
the Stonehenge World Heritage Site northern 
boundary. The evaluation of the site comprised 12 
machine-excavated trenches and five hand- 
excavated test-pits. Twelve postholes of modern date 
were identified, as well as redeposited chalk rubble 
surfaces. All features identified are likely to relate 
to the relatively recent military occupation of the 
site. No obviously pre-modern features or finds were 
recovered. The absence of archaeological remains 
reflects the results of previous evaluations in the 
immediate vicinity of the site. This is notable given 
the relative density of prehistoric monuments, 
features and finds in the vicinity, and may reflect 
the location of the site on the periphery of ancient 
field systems and settlement, possibly within an area 
of long term pasture. 


Enford 

(SU 1431 5125 to 1475 5062); Prehistoric and 
Roman 

Observations during pipeline works by Wessex Water 
revealed a small quantity of undiagnostic worked 
flint and one sherd of 4th-century AD New Forest 
Ware. No archaeological features were observed. 
The work was undertaken by ASI Heritage 
Consultants. 


Idmiston 

Buller Park, Porton (SU 193 364); Roman 
Observations during the excavation of an evaluation 
trench revealed part of the rammed chalk agger of 


233 


“The Portway’ Roman road. Where observed, the 
agger was up to 0.6m thick with large flint nodules 
on the surface. No artefacts were recovered. The 
work was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. 


Latton and Blunsdon St Andrew 
Between Cricklade and Broad Blunsdon (SU 117 
936 to SU 162 896); ?>Roman, Anglo-Saxon and 
Medieval 
Between August and October 2001, Cotswold 
Archaeological Trust carried out a programme of 
archaeological fieldwork comprising evaluations, 
excavations and a continuous watching brief along 
the route of the Cricklade to Broad Blunsdon 
‘Transco Gas pipeline. The watching brief identified 
three archaeological sites which were subsequently 
subject to excavation. These comprised a series of 
11th- to 15th-century ditches and a 13th- to 15th- 
century agricultural building, with stone wall 
footings and a cobbled floor surface (centred on 
SU 1230 9326); a probable Roman trackway, 
known as ‘Great Rose Lane’ (at SU 1375 9268); 
and a further metalled trackway of unknown date 
(at SU 1268 9268). In addition, three areas of extant 
ridge-and-furrow were identified along the course 
of the pipeline and a number of hedge banks were 
also recorded during the watching brief. The 
evaluation trenching identified two ditches, one of 
which was undated and the other modern in date. 
A late 5th- to 6th-century AD iron spearhead was 
also recovered from the ploughsoil, probably 
disturbed from a burial. 


Liddington 

East of Badbury (SU 1994 8055); Bronze Age 
Bernard Phillips and others found a concentration 
of Bronze Age sherds during fieldwork. 


East of Badbury (SU 1991 8059); Saxon 
During fieldwork by Bernard Phillips and others 
two grass-tempered sherds were recovered. 


North-east of Liddington Castle (SU 2018 8013); 
Neolithic 

R. Boon found half a polished Neolithic axe head. 
Reported by Bernard Phillips. 


North-east of Liddington Farm (SU 2050 7978); 
Neolithic 

A badger set dug into a long barrow produced many 
fist-sized chalk blocks from the barrow core 


234 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Northernmost frame, from the south 


Southernmost frame, from the north 


Figure . Roof structure of Cell 


Fig. 2. Melksham: Gifford’s Surgery 


construction. At the centre of the barrow a large 
sarsen stone, perhaps part of a chamber, is exposed. 
Reported by Bernard Phillips. 


Longbridge Deverill 

Sand Hill Tank Outlet Main (ST 8850 4195); 
Undated 

Observations during groundworks adjacent to the 
Sand Hill henge monument, associated with 
construction of a new water supply main from the 
Sand Hill reservoir, revealed enhanced natural soil 
horizons over one metre deep beneath road make- 
up deposits. No interpretable archaeological 
deposits or artefacts were identified. The work was 
undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. 


Marlborough 

St. Martin’s Mews; Medieval and Post-Medieval 
Foundation trenching for a QPC Construction 
development sectioned four deep graves containing 
extended and formerly coffined burials: two elderly 
males, a young adult female and an unsexed adult. 


Two further burials in shallower graves are of a one 
year-old infant and a female aged 15-21.The graves 
cut the mortar floor and chalk and flint floor 
packing of a building. Associated finds include 
fragments of medieval terracotta roofing and 
decorated floor tiles. A thin humus layer, sealed by 
the floor packing, produced animal bones and 
several 1 2th/13th century sherds. Below this silt and 
gravel filled a shallow flat-bottomed hollow. Later 
features include a pit and an 18th-century brick- 
lined well. Bernard Phillips carried out retrieval of 
finds and recording. 


Melksham 

Gittord’s Surgery, Lowbourne (SU 9062 6386); 
Post-Medieval 

Archaeological observations during demolition of 
the former Gifford’s Surgery in Lowbourne, in 
accordance with a condition of Planning 
Permission, identified extensive components of at 
least one early 18th- or late 17th-century building . 
of non-domestic function within the amalgam of 
otherwise 19th- and 20th-century elements. 


EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 


The building, originating as an agricultural 
building or perhaps a woolstore, and identifiable on 
surveys of 1734 as the property of the radical Quaker 
Isaac Self, re-used late medieval roof structure from 
an unknown building. It was converted by the 
addition of a lateral stack and then window openings 
during the mid 18th century, before becoming 
subsumed within 19th-century extensions. In its 
final, detached state, it displayed some architectural 
decoration in the form of window cornices and 
interior panelling and may have stood as a well- 
appointed and distinct house (Figure 2). The work 
was undertaken by ASI Heritage Consultants. 


Salisbury 

Bishop Wordsworth’s School (SU 1427 2929); Post- 
Medieval and Modern 

An archaeological evaluation by means of three 
machine-excavated trenches was undertaken by AC 
archaeology in connection with proposals for the 
construction of a new classroom block at Bishop 
Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. The site is located 
on the east side of the Cathedral Close to the rear 
of medieval properties fronting Bishop’s Walk. 
Within the areas excavated there was a consistent 
depositional sequence comprising modern topsoil 
above a subsoil containing post-medieval pottery, 
in turn overlying natural clays and gravels. A smali 
area of demolition rubble, derived from a building 
of unknown date and function, was recorded in one 
of the trenches, but this too contained only post- 
medieval finds. 


The Anchor Brewery Site, Gigant Street, (SU 1469 
2985); Medieval/Post-Medieval 

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Gleeson 
Homes to undertake an archaeological evaluation 
of a c.0.47ha area at the site of the former Anchor 
Brewery in Gigant Street, Salisbury. The work was 
required as part of the planning condition for the 
residential and commercial redevelopment of the 
site (see WANHM 95, 287-8). Stage 4 of this 
evaluation comprised a single machine-excavated 
trench in the north-eastern part of the site. A 
complex sequence of urban deposits and features, 
including wall lines, floor surfaces, mortar deposits 
and hearths was recorded. The build-up of urban 
deposits could be seen to be at least 0.6m in depth. 
The layers and features represent medieval and 
post-medieval development within burgage plots, 
including the likely presence of structures fronting 
on to Gigant Street. 


235 


82 St Ann Street (SU 14866 29665); Modern 
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned to 
undertake an archaeological evaluation of land at 
82 St. Ann Street for Damen Associates on behalf 
of Dr. Collier and Partners. The site consisted of a 
lawned garden to the rear of the existing surgery. 
No archaeology was previously known on the site, 
but the putative course of the city rampart was 
thought to run through the property. The evaluation 
entailed the excavation of one machine-dug trench. 
Early modern brick, stone and cut features 
associated with post-medieval and early modern 
drains or soakaways were recorded. Only a few post- 
medieval and early modern artefacts were found, 
along with two residual prehistoric flints. 


Quidhampton Quarry (SU 11150 31550); Undated 
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Imerys 
Minerals Limited to undertake an archaeological 
watching brief during the construction of an access 
road, settlement lagoons and an adjacent bund at 
Quidhampton Quarry, Salisbury. Observation 
revealed no archaeological features or deposits, 
however the presence of burnt and struck flint from 
residual topsoil may indicate prehistoric activity in 
the surrounding area. 


Salisbury Plain Training Area 

‘C’ Crossing (SU 1468 4635); Prehistoric 

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Defence 
Estates to undertake an archaeological evaluation 
of land west of ‘C’ crossing on Salisbury Plain 
Training Area, prior to its proposed planting as 
woodland. The area was irregular in shape and c.17 
ha in area. It was located on undulating ground 
one kilometre south-west of the village of 
Figheldean and was being used as pasture, although 
one block of woodland was present within the area. 
The evaluation comprised 41 machine-excavated 
trenches each measuring 50 x 2m. 

Recorded features included two possible 
postholes, four undated ditches and two pits, both 
of which were located on high points of the land 
and probably of ritual significance. Pit 404 lay 
centrally between two parallel ditches and contained 
placed antlers as well as a large amount of debitage 
and flint tools probably dating to the Neolithic 
period. It also contained Iron Age pottery. The 
second pit (3204) contained a large amount of Iron 
Age pottery and animal bones. Undated negative 
lynchets were found running parallel to the contours 
of the land. Treethrows were also present. 


236 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Robin Hood’s Ball and Silver Barrow, SPTA 
(Tilshead) (SU 1050 4593); Prehistoric 

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by the 
Defence Estates to record the extent of disturbances 
caused by badgers at two Scheduled Monuments 
on the Salisbury Plain Training Area using 
geophysical and earthwork survey. The work was 
also required to recover any datable artefacts and 
to reinstate the spoil into the setts. 

The two monuments comprised a small oval, 
previously undated enclosure, of unknown extent 
(centred on SU 1050 4593) east of the Neolithic 
causewayed enclosure at Robin Hood’s Ball, and 
Silver Barrow, a large bowl barrow (centred on SU 
0455 4723), which lies south-east of Westdown 
Camp, Tilshead. The results of the survey at Robin 
Hood’s Ball defined the extent of the enclosure and 
suggested that it is of Late Bronze Age date or 
earlier. The work at Silver Barrow indicated that 
the setts had severely disturbed a large spread of 
flint knapping waste, which lay on the old ground 
surface beneath the mound. 


Swindon 

9-11 High Street, Old Town (SU 158 838); Roman, 
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval 

An archaeological excavation by Cotswold 
Archaeological Trust prior to the construction of 
a block of flats produced a quantity of Roman, 
Anglo-Saxon, medieval and later pottery. However, 
this was all recovered from accumulated mixed 
garden soils, and no discrete archaeological 
features were identified. 


Great Western Hospital (SU 1905 8225); Roman 
and Undated 

Archaeological watching by Bernard Phillips of 
machine topsoil removal and downgrading of land 
for construction of an Intermediate Care Unit 
resulted in the discovery of a Romano-British 
pottery spread and two undated features: a stone- 
filled pit and a stone-lined drain. 


Urchfont 

Oakfrith Wood (SU 02805651); Neolithic to 
Medieval 

The planting of trees adjacent to Oakfrith Wood, 
to mark the millennium, was preceded by gridded 
fieldwalking by The Friends of Oakfrith Wood, 
led by Patricia Howell, in order to test the 
archaeological potential of the site. Very little was 


recovered. A very thin scatter of Neolithic flintwork 
and a single abraded sherd of Bronze Age pottery 
represents the prehistoric background activity that 
one might expect on the Upper Greensand, with 
an almost imperceptible increase towards the east 
of the investigated area. It hints perhaps that 
clusters of material might exist somewhere close 
by. 

A thin scatter of medieval pottery might come 
from manuring, which would indicate that the 
ground was under cultivation at that time. One 
piece is chaff tempered and could hint at an early 
medieval presence not too far distant. One 
potsherd and a single piece of clay pipe stem 
indicates a lack of activity here after the medieval 
period and it may be that the land was put down 
to pasture or woodland at that time. The site 
records and material have been deposited with 
Wiltshire Heritage Museum. 


Wanborough 

West of the Calley Arms (SU 210 826); Roman 
and Medieval 

A few Romano-British and numerous medieval 
sherds were found in small cutting made by the 
house owner into the rear garden. Reported by 
Bernard Phillips. 


Half Moon Plantation (SU 2338 7931); Bronze Age 
Fieldwork by Bernard Phillips revealed a 
concentration of Bronze Age sherds and worked 
flints in association with a dense scatter of burnt, 
fragmented sarsen stone. 


West Ashton 

Manor Farm (ST 8800 5522); Medieval and Post- 
Medieval 

In June 2001 Cotswold Archaeological Trust carried 
out an evaluation on a set of earthworks, possibly 
part of a medieval village. One trench revealed a 
levelled bank and a 1.5m deep ditch and another 
the same, though waterlogged, ditch at least 1.35m 
deep, with a medieval track or yard surface to the 
south-west. Further evidence of medieval activity 
was represented by a 0.53m deep ditch, possibly 
part of an enclosure. This was followed by a further 
evaluation in October 2001 just to the west at 
Manor Farm (ST 8815 5526) where a post- 
medieval stone surface and a stone-lined drain were 
found. 


EXCAVATION AND FIELDWORK IN WILTSHIRE 2001 


Westbury 

Northacre Business Park (ST 8540 5208); Medieval 
Archaeological monitoring during the excavation 
of new drainage trenches on land adjacent to the 
new United Milk Dairy site was undertaken by AC 
archaeology. The trenches were located in a field 
where previous evaluation had identified evidence 
for medieval settlement on a raised natural gravel 
terrace above Biss Brook. No archaeological 
features or deposits were disturbed during 
excavation of the drainage trenches, but quantities 
of unstratified late 12th- or 13th-century pottery 
were recovered. 


Wilton 

35 West Street (SU 0942 3132); Undated 
Archaeological monitoring of three geotechnical 
trial pits and two bore holes was undertaken by AC 
archaeology. Waterborne sediments were recorded 
within the machine dug trial pits from a depth of 
c.0.6m. These contained occasional preserved plant 
remains and animal bone, along with one piece of 
preserved leather at a depth greater than 2.5m. No 
in situ archaeological deposits were recorded. 


The church of St. Mary and St. Nicholas (SU 0970 
3120); Medieval to Modern 

Archaeological investigations associated with the 
installation of new floodlighting on the site were 
undertaken by AC archaeology. The work was 


237 


carried out under the terms of Scheduled Ancient 
Monument consent and involved the hand- 
excavation of six pits up to 0.5 x 0.5m and of a 
cable trench 0.15m wide, 0.2m deep and 64m long. 
This trench ran around the standing walls of the 
church and out to two floodlight points to the north- 
east and south-west. The trenching exposed buried 
wall footings from a number of separate structures, 
several of which appeared to pre-date the church 
and may have medieval or possibly Saxon origins. 
Other structures were formed of red brick walls and 
are likely to be of mid-19th century date. 


Wootton Bassett 

Red Lodge (SU 0658 8321); Mesolithic, Neolithic/ 
Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval and Post-Medieval 
Observation and artefact retrieval by Bernard 
Phillips, and Derek and Alexander Shaw during the 
construction of school playing fields yielded 
Mesolithic and Neolithic/Bronze Age flintwork 
adjacent to a spring. Close to a second spring a 
sealed peat layer contained oak and hazel branches, 
along with plant remains. The surviving part of the 
deposit, associated with a few Romano-British 
sherds and worked flints, could potentially provide 
early environmental evidence relating to Braydon 
Forest. Worn Romano-British and medieval sherds 
were also recovered, and demonstrate cultivation, 
whilst post-medieval pottery and a 19th-century 
stone track indicate later activity. 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2002), pp. 238-239 


Reviews 


John Bowen. The Story of Malmesbury: part one 
500 BC — 1600 AD. Malmesbury 2000, 136 pages, 
£15.99, hardback, ISBN 0 9539715 0 3. 


As the title suggests ‘The Story of Malmesbury, part 
one’ tells the story, rather than the history, of life in 
Malmesbury from its earliest known inhabitants to 
the year 1600. It is an ambitious project to cover more 
than 2000 years of the life of the town in 136 pages. 
The author acknowledges the difficulty in answering 
the myriad questions of how and why Malmesbury 
and its abbey are situated where they are, and while 
he offers various facts and suggestions he inevitably 
raises more questions as his story progresses. Work by 
archaeologists in uncovering the remnants of a huge 
Iron Age defensive wall in 1998 has tempted him to 
ask if they have uncovered evidence of ancient Caer 
Bladon, and is Caer Bladon Malmesbury? 

The book itself is a large, sumptuously produced 
hardback, beautifully illustrated with good quality 
colour photographs. The main focus of the work is 
centred on the religious settlement, from Aldhelm’s 
7th century Benedictine monastery to the 
establishment of the Norman abbey, which has 
dominated the town since the 12th century. The 
interaction between the abbey and town is traced, 
down to William Stumpe’s use of the abbey premises 
for cloth production after the Dissolution. 

The use of a period timeline at the start of each 
chapter is a helpful addition to contextualise the period 
under discussion, although social events do not often 
tie in neatly with royal reigns. 

The work contains many little gems to delight the 
reader, such as the identification of street names on 
pp.79-80, and the woodland imagery of church 
architecture on p.59. There are informative 
biographical snippets about some of the town’s leading 
religious and secular figures. Extensive quotes from 
John Leland, Thomas Hobbes and John Aubrey are 
provided, although there has been no real attempt to 
analyse or put into context these contemporary and 
17th century commentaries. In his discussion of the 
16th century the author refers tantalisingly to the 
‘sleaze’ reports of the official visitations to the abbey. 
Although he reports that the visitation of 1527 


uncovered enough minor scandals for the locals to be 
very unhappy no examples are provided, leaving the 
reader as unhappy as the locals! 

Other quibbles with the work stem from the 
general lack of organisation of the material. Each 
chapter seems to have been written to stand alone, 
and when read together there is some irritating 
duplication of basic information, such as the constant 
repetition of William of Malmesbury’s credentials. 

Much valuable and relevant information has been 
hidden away in the endnotes to each chapter when it 
could have been successfully incorporated into the 
main text. The worst instances of this appear in 
Chapter 6, note 4, and Chapter 7, note 21, each of 
which takes up more than a page of this A4 size book. 

While this work is a lively story of Malmesbury, 
peppered with speculation and anecdote, anyone 
wanting a more academic history of the town would 
be better off with the Wiltshire County Council’s 1999 
History of Malmesbury compiled from articles from 
the Victoria County History. Despite its minor 
academic shortcomings this is an attractive book in 
the tradition and style of the antiquarians of old. The 
author’s love of, and enthusiasm for, the town and 
abbey shines through on every page. 

KAY S. TAYLOR 


The Picture Book of Malmesbury. Malmesbury 
Town Council 2001, limited edition of 500 copies, 
ISBN 0 9539715 1 1. 


This enchanting picture book of Malmesbury is a 
lovely companion volume to John Bowen’s Story of 
Malmesbury, and he has been deeply involved in its 
production. The exquisite collection of fifty plates 
provides a breath-taking array of views of the town 
and the abbey, from all directions and in all seasons. 
The layout of the book is simple and uncluttered. 

There are no captions, as each plate is only identified 
by a number, with information given at the end. This 
is an aid to the aesthetic enjoyment of each view, and 
it is entertaining trying to identify the less well-known 
parts of the town. The down side is the need constantly 
to flip backwards and forwards in order to tie up the 
information with the picture. 


REVIEWS 


The postscript to the work notes that ‘as 
Malmesbury’s houses date from the 9th to 21st 
century, 1300 years have given us a very special 
cocktail, but it would appear that the most recent 
additions to this cocktail were not considered worthy 
of inclusion. Neither were any examples of modern 
industry, despite the claim that ‘Malmesbury is a 
special place, sacred and full of history yet vibrant 
and at the cutting-edge of new technology.’ 

This book is a charming introduction to the visual 
delights of historic Malmesbury and whets the appetite 
to visit for a personal look at the scenes depicted. 

KAY S. TAYLOR 


Plenderleath’s Memoranda of Cherhill, Edited by 
John Reis. Fulmar Publishing, Compton Bassett, 
2001; xxxviii, 134 pages, illustrated, hardback, ISBN 
1 903979 05 6. 


For most of us the name William Plenderleath brings 
to mind an article on ‘White Horses of Wiltshire’, 
which appeared in volume 14 of WANHM in 1874, 
and a small booklet called White Horses of the West 
of England — a subject suitable for one who was rector 
of Cherhill from 1860 to 1892 and thus overlooked 
by the bottle glass eye of one such resident of the 
Wiltshire downs. Plenderleath also wrote two volumes, 
in manuscript, about Cherhill and his time there and 
fortunately these were acquired by John Reis a few 
years ago. 

The first volume is dated 1887, but signed in 
August 1888, while the second is dated 1892 and was 
written to record the village celebrations at the time 
of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee. John Reis believes 
that these have been compiled from diaries or a rough 
text. Plenderleath predicted that ‘the clergy as the 
resident pastors, helpers and friends of their people, 
are doomed to extinction’ and that his book would 
show what an English country village was like in the 
19th century ‘as portrayed by one who had the best 
opportunities of knowing’. 

This well edited book tells us much about 
Plenderleath, who was scholarly and charitable and a 
devout and conscientious churchman. His writings 
show a sense of humour and, although he often seems 
anxious to please, he is always secure in his place in 
the social order of the day. His interest in history and 
archaeology is obvious and he was a member of this 
Society. Another area of concern was the local dialect 
and he quotes several of his parishioners in their own 
speech. He was a contemporary of Francis Kilvert and 
the men knew one another while their families met at 
social events. 

The Memoranda largely comprise descriptions of 
events with anecdotes and we can gather useful 


239 


information, such as the fact that butter and cheese 
were made in the parish in 1860 although Cherhill is 
at the edge of the chalk country. When Plenderleath 
came to the village there were still church gallery 
musicians, playing clarionet, flute, violin and 
violoncello, and two members of the notorious Cherhill 
Gang still lived. These with ‘venerable white heads 
bowed over their big prayer books’ included the man 
who went naked to rob people in summertime as they 
would not be looking at his face and would not 
recognise him when dressed. 

John Reis has done an excellent job in editing and 
introducing these writings. He has brought us a picture 
of both the village and an enlightened 19th-century 
clergyman, who was quite prepared to take on a local 
landowner if necessary. An instance of this is his 
interest in rights of way when he conducted a minor 
campaign against Lord Lansdowne’s agent over a 
blocked footpath. 

MICHAEL MARSHMAN 


Tim Couzens. Hand of Fate. The History of the 
Longs, Wellesleys and the Draycot Estate in 
Wiltshire. ELSP, 2001, 199 pages, photographs, map. 
Price £7.99, paperback, ISBN 1 903341 72 6. 


Tim Couzens has deep family roots in and around 
Draycot Cerne, so that this is to some extent a work 
of family piety. It is also a well-researched account of 
one of Wiltshire’s lesser known houses and estates. For 
its early history, under the Cernes, the writer was able 
to rely largely on the VCH, and after the advent of the 
Longs in the mid-15th century he had valuable help 
from the pedigrees of the various branches compiled 
by C. E. Long. From this base he has worked hard 
and successfully to locate sources in several other 
record offices and libraries, and has brought the family 
to life. Most people interested in Wiltshire history are 
aware of the disastrous marriage of the great heiress 
Catherine Long and the arch-bounder William 
Wellesley Pole. Here they have the story in full detail. 
For the last period of the estate there is much excellent 
social history, well illustrated from the writer’s family 
photographs, and also a full description of the vanished 
mansion. 

One error, gathered from a source which was 
incorrect, should be pointed out. There is no evidence 
that the first Long, Robert, had any connection with 
the cloth industry, nor is it true that he paid for the 
tower of Steeple Ashton church. The Robert Long who 
paid for one of the aisles there may have been related 
to the Longs who later lived at Rood Ashton, but how 


is not known. 
KEN ROGERS 


Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 96 (2003), pp. 240-250 


Index 
by Philip Aslett 


NOTE: Wiltshire places are indexed or referenced under civil parish 


Abercromby, Lord, 163 

Aberdeen (Scotland), 170 

Abingdon Abbey (Oxon), 84 

AC archaeology, 215, 237; evaluations, 232; 
excavations, 229; watching briefs, 229 

accident victims, 15 

Aceraceae (maples), 46 

Achimota College, 1 

adzes, serpentine, 181 

Aegean, 175, 180, 182, 183, 187 

Felfric, Abbot, 82, 85 

elfric of Cerne, 86 

7elfstan, 84 

aerial photography, 55, 60; applications, 151; 
Lammy Down, Bishopstone, 230; 
Mildenhall, 28; surveys, 148-60; 
Winterbourne Bassett, 203, 204 


Aeshna cyanea (Southern Hawker 
dragonfly), 64, 65 
Aeshna juncea (Common Hawker 


dragonfly), 67 

Aesthetic Movement, 52 

A&thelmer, Ealdorman, 81—2 

7Sthelred, King, 77 

ABthelwold, 85 

7Sthelwulf, King, 83 

Agricola, 211 

agricultural buildings, 235 

agriculture: ?medieval, 231; improvements, 
22; steam ploughing, 224—5 

airfields, 159, 215-18, 229 

Aitchison, George, school architecture, 47— 
53 

Akenedola, Justus, 3 

Aldbourne, 39, 219 

Alderbury, 22; Earbidgers of, 22 

Aldhelm, Abbot, 77 

Alexander, Keith, paper on saproxylic status 
of Savernake Forest, 137-42 

Alfred, King, 80 

Algiers (Algeria), 50, 52 

All Cannings: church, 77, 80-1; Tan Hill, 
202 

All Party Conservation Committee, 94 

Allva, Duke of (1508-82), 145 

Almesforth (Somerset?), 104 

Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (France), 178 

Alton, Alton Priors, 224 

Alwine, 84 

amber, sources, 187-8 

amber objects, 162, 171, 174, 178, 181; 
beads, 172; pendants, 180, 183 

Amesbury, 60, 100, 101, 102, 104, 109; 
Amesbury Down, 154—5 Fig. 7, 154-5 
Fig. 9, 157, 158; barrows, 172, 182, 183— 
5, 186, 215-18; Boscombe Down, 186, 
229; Boscombe Down Airfield, 159, 215— 
18; Boscombe Down West, 215-18; 
Butterfield Down, 170; Coneybury, 60; 
Earl’s Farm, 217; Fargo/Cursus Group, 
186; King Barrow Ridge, 60; knives, 179; 
manor, 99; New Barn Down, 217; New 
King Barrow, 186; Old King Barrow, 186; 
Ratfyn, 60, see also Stonehenge 

Amity {Emity] Oak, 41 

AML (Ancient Monuments Laboratory), 
197,199 

Ampedus spp. (beetles), 141 

Ampthill (Bedfordshire), Houghton House, 


103, 110 

Ancient Monuments Acts, 4 

Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML), 
197, 199 

Andover (Hants), Portway, 12 

Andrefsky, W., 58 

Andrews and Dury, map (1773), 196 

Anglesey (Wales), 125 

Angus, 170, 188 

animal bone see bone, animal 

Anisoptera (dragonflies), 64, 65 

Annable, Frederick Kenneth (1922-2002): 
bibliography, 5—6; obituary, 1-5 

Annable, Myra, 1, 2, 4,5 

Anobiidae (beetles), 139 

Ansty, 21, 22; Ansty Manor House, 229 

antiquarianism: archaeological, 111—28; 
perceptions, 119-20 

Antiquarian Repertory, 121 

antlers, 230 

Appleby, Claire, 92 

apple trees, 43 

appliques rectangulaires, 172 

Aquifoliaceae (holly), 45 

Araneae (spiders), 129-36 

Araneidae (spiders), 129 

Araneus diadematus (spider), 129 

archaeological objects, false findspots, 38— 
9 

Archaeological Site Investigations (ASI) see 
ASI Heritage Consultants 

archaeology: Hoare’s contribution, 111-28; 
prehistoric, 1 

Archbishop’s Court of Audience, 72 

architecture, Near Eastern influences, 47— 
53 

Area Museums Council, 4, 91 

armlets, gold, 172 

Army Bird Watching Society, 90 

Arnold, Henry R., 208 

arrowheads, 178; flint, 176, 178, 180, 181, 
183 

art: Graeco-Roman, 210; Romano-Celtic, 
208 

artefacts: post-medieval, 231; false 
findspots, 38—9 

arthropod remains, 59 

Arundell, Lady, 21 

Arundell, Lord, 21 

Arundell family, 19, 20; lands, 22 

Ashbee, P., 182 

Ashe, Sir James, 20, 24 

Ashe, Sir Joseph, 20, 21, 22-3, 24, 25 

Ashe, Lady Mary, 20, 21, 24 

Ashe family, 20 

Ashley (Gloucestershire), Tothill, 83 

ash trees, 41 

ASI Heritage Consultants, 231, 232, 233, 
234, 235; evaluations, 55 

Askins, Martin, paper on spiders in 
Wiltshire, 129-36 

Athelstan, King, 228 

Atkinson, Richard John Copland, 2, 230 

Atworth, Great Chalfield, 220 

Aubrey, John, 72, 80, 212, 238 

Austria, 182 

Avebury, 125, 170, 196; Alexander Keiller 
Museum, 152, 197; beakers, 170; 
Beckhampton, 79, 170; Beckhampton 


Avenue, 210, 212, 213; Beckhampton 
Cove, 212; Circus, 212; cropmarks, 149; 
Devil’s Quoits, 212; Discus, 212; 
Falkner’s Circle, 195; figurines, 33-9; Fox 
Covert, 213; Gunsite Lane, 151, 154, 
155; Harepit Lane, 213; High Street, 230; 
Longstones Field, 213; Overton Hill, 
213; Rogers Meadow, 35; St James’s 
Church, 202; Sanctuary, 155, 204, 212, 
213; Silbury Hill, 37, 151, 202, 211, 230; 
stone circles, 195, 210; surveys, 123; 
Twining on, 210-13; United Reform 
Church, 229-30; West Kennet, 149-51; 
West Kennet Avenue, 123, 155, 212, 213; 
West Kennet Farm, 151—5;Windmill Hill, 
170, 177, 196 

Avebury Archaeological and Historical 
Research Group, 201 

Avebury World Heritage Site, Mapping 
Project, 150 

Aveling & Porter, 224 

Avon, River (North), 66-7 

Avon, River (South), 7, 9, 13, 101, 156, 158; 
Avon Valley, 55, 60, 61, 149, 225; 
communications, 14; dragonflies, 67; 
territorial significance, 16; water 
meadows, 22-3 

axe moulds, 187 

axes, 176, 178, 180, 187; Palaeolithic, 7; 
Neolithic, 233; Bronze Age, 39; Arreton 
style, 187; Balleyvalley type, 180, 181, 
182, 183; bronze, 180, 181-5; carvings, 
187; Irish, 187; Roe’s Intermediate Form, 
177; Scottish Bb type, 181 


Bacchus, 210 

Bacon, Francis, Baron Verulam of Verulam, 
Viscount St. Albans (1561-1626), 120 

Baconian inductive reasoning, 111, 120, 
215 122 

badgers, 236 

Badminton (South Gloucestershire), 99, 
100, 102, 109 

Balfe, Lesley, 90, 93, 94 

Balsdon [Balston] (West Berkshire), 70 

banks, hedge, 233 

Baptist chapels, 232 

Barber, Martyn, paper on 
photography, 148-60 

Barker, C. T., 204 

Barnack (Cambridgeshire), 174 

Barnard (curio dealer), 37-8 

Barnhill, Angus, 188 

Barron, Ron, 93 

Barrow Hills (Oxon), 172, 174 

barrows, 117, 120-1, 124, 126, 156, 204; 
Neolithic, 217, 233-4; Late Neolithic/ 
Early Bronze Age, 55; Beaker, 161—94; 
Bronze Age, 7, 13, 14; Early Bronze Age, 
170-2; bell, 161, 177, 183-5, 217; bowl, 
naa Se 2 lens G1SGon UStinmeliSiuaailens 
distribution, 169; early theories, 121; 
excavations, 124—5; long, 124, 233-4; 
protection, 217; ring, 177, 186; round, 
215-18; saucer, 217; surveys, 123; 
Twining’s interpretation, 211; Wessex 
Series, 170-2, 177; Wilsford 1, 186; 
Wilsford 2b, 186; 
Wilsford 5, 161, 170-1, 177, 181-3, 185, 


aerial 


INDEX 


187 (midrib knife, 179-80); Wilsford 7, 
161-94; 
Wilsford 8, 161, 170, 171, 173, 187 
(halberd-pendants, 181-2, 183; 
ornaments, 174—5; perforated-wall cups, 
177); Wilsford 9, 173; Wilsford 16, 184; 
Wilsford 18, 184, 187;Wilsford 23, 173, 
184, 187; Wilsford 52, 186; Wilsford 54, 
186; Wilsford 58, 177 

Basires JS: 116,117,121, 123, 124 

Bath, Marquess of, 143 

Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 85 

battleaxes, stone, 177, 181 

Bavarian State Department of Historical 
Monuments (Germany), 199 

BDS (British Dragonfly Society), 63, 65 

beads, 162-3, 174, 180, 183; amber, 172; 
fusiform, 174, 183; jet, 171, 172, 177 

beakers, 57, 164-70 

Beaufort, Ist Duchess of (1630-1715), 98— 
110 

Beaumont, Bishop of Salisbury, 73 

Bedford, Duke of, 110 

Bedford, George, 22 

Bedfordshire, 103, 110, see also Ampthill; 
Burbage; Luton; Malden; Melchbourne 

Beech, William, 74 

beeches, 41, 42, 43 

Beecroft Bequest, 208 

beetles: saproxylic, 137-42; in saproxylic 
status evaluation, 137—42; trapping, 141 

Belfast trusses, 232 

Belgium see Brussels 

Bellamy, Peter, note on flaked stone from 
Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 58 

Belmonte-Picenza (Italy), 37 

belt-hooks: bone, 184, 187; gold, 171 

Bennett, Anthony, 21 

Bennett, Barren, 21 

Bennett, John, 19, 20, 21, 22 

Bennett, Patience, 21 

Bennett, Repentance, 21 

Berkshire, 69, 102, 104; artefacts, 33, 39, 
see also Balsdon; Eton College; 
Hungerford; Lambourn; Lambourn 
Downs; Newbury; Reading University 

Berwick St James, Druid’s Lodge, 154—5 
Fig. 11, 158 

Bettey, J. H., paper on manorial stewards, 
19-25 

Betulaceae (birches), 45 

Biddestone, 79; Slaughterford, 79 

Big Belly Oak, 41 

Big Rings (Oxon), 2 

Bindon, Chris, 92 

Biological Records Centre (BRC), 89, 91, 
224; computerization, 96; establishment, 
90, 92 

Biphyllidae (beetles), 139 

bird-cherry, 42 

birds, in brooch designs, 218, 219 

Bishops Cannings, 175; church, 77, 80-1; 
figurine, 33, 34—5; Horton, 80; St Mary’s 
church, 5; Shepherds Shore, 35 

Bishopstone (near Swindon): Hinton Parva, 
230; Lammy Down, 230 

Biss, River, 67 

Blackmore, H. P., 136 

blacksmiths, 35, 37 

blades, 183; Neolithic, 57, 5& 

Blagdon Hill (Dorset), 21 

Blair, John, 86 

Blewbury Soil Association, 197 

Blunsdon St Andrew: Abbeymeads Business 
Park, 230-1; Blunsdon Hill Reservoir, 
230; Broad Blunsdon, 230, 233; Great 
Rose Lane, 233 

bog bodies: Neolithic, 13-14; Bronze Age, 
14; Iron Age, 14; Romano-British, 14; 
5th/6th century, 7-18; 7th century, 14; 
post-medieval, 14; distribution, 13-14; 
posture, 14; significance, 14-15 

Bohemia, King and Queen of, 144 

Bond, Leslie, 93 

bone: 
animal, 237 (Neolithic, 56, 58-9, 230; 


Late Neolithic, 152; Late Bronze Age/ 
Early Iron Age, 229; Iron Age, 235; 
Roman, 28; Late Roman, 30); 
disarticulated, 231; human, 162-3 
(Early Roman, 30; Late Roman, 30-1; 
5th/6th century, 9-12, 13; undated, 31) 

bone objects, 184, 187; moulds, 219 

Boon, R., 233 

Bosgrove, Thomas, 74 

botanical recording, 94—5 

Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI), 
95 


Botfield, Beriah, 49 

Boucher, Stephanie, 226 

boundaries: linear, 157—8; ranch, 157, 158 

Bourne, River, 54, 154—5 Fig. 9, 156, 158 

Boveridge (Dorset), 23 

Bowen, John, work reviewed, 238 

bowls, Irish funerary, 165 

Box, 79, 80; Hazelbury, 80 

boxes, 174, 183; wooden, 180 

Brabant, Robert, 74 

bracelets, 172; gold, 178 

Brachytron pratense (Hairy dragonfly), 66 

Bradenham, Sir Henry de, 71, 72-3 

Bradenstoke, 85; Abbey, 219; Clack Mount, 
219-20 

Bradford-on-Avon, 228; Barton Bridge, 231; 
church, 77; dragonflies, 65, 66; St 
Laurence’s Chapel, 206-7; Small 
Footbridge, 231 

brass objects, dog collars, 214 

Bratton, Bratton Camp, 151 

Braydon: Braydon Forest, 237; Braydon 
Pond, 66 

Braydon Oak, 41 

BRC see Biological Records Centre (BRC) 

Brean, Mr, 145 

Brecknockshire, 102 

Breeze, Andrew, note on Melksham place- 
names, 227-8 

Bremhill, 82, 85; Avon, 82; Charlcutt, 82; 
Foxham, 82; Spirthill, 82; Tytherton, 79 

Breton Barrow Graves (France), 177-9, 
180-1, 182, 185 

Bretons, 227-8 

Briantspuddle (Dorset), 227 

Briard, J., 178 

Bridgeman, Sir Orlando (c.1607-—74), 99 

bridges, medieval, 231 

Brighton Pavilion (East Sussex), 50 

Brinkworth: church, 79; Grittenham, 83 

Bristol, 21; University, 94 

Britford: church, 77; water meadows, 65, 67 

British Association of Anthropology and 
Osteoarchaeology, 15 

British Deer Society, 90 

British Dragonfly Society (BDS), 63, 65 

British Lichen Society, 96 

Brittany (France), 210, 227-8; and Wessex, 
228, see also Breton Barrow Graves; 
Dinan; E! Mar; Helléan; Kernonen; 
Pl6ermel; Plouvorn; Tanwedou 

Brixton Deverill, 84, 226 

Broad Chalke, church, 77 

Broad Hinton, 196, 202 

broadleaf trees, 42 

Brokenborough, 78, 79, 83 

Bromham: Chittoe Heath, 67; St Nicholas’s 
Church, 231; Spye Park, 67 

bronze objects, 33-9, 172, 174, 175, 178, 
181; Roman, 35; dog collars, 213-14; 
figurines, 208-10, 225-7 

brooches see disc-brooches; fibulae 

Brooke, Frances, Lady Cobham, 143, 144 

Brooke, Henry, 143 

Brooke, Joshua, 33-9 

Brooke, Margaret, 143 

Brooke, Maximilian, 143 

Brooke, William, 10th Baron Cobham 
(1527-1597), 143-7 

Brooke, William, 143 

Brooke family, 143-7 

Brooks, Chris, 50 

Broome Heath (Norfolk), 60, 61 

Broughton Gifford, 79 


241 


Browne, John, 24 

Browne, Marion, 93 

Brown, William, 72 

Bruce, Charles, 3rd Earl of Ailesbury (d. 
1747), 110 

Bruce, Elizabeth, Countess of Ailesbury, 98— 
110 

Bruce, Robert, 2nd Earl of Elgin and Ist 
Earl of Ailesbury (d. 1685), 102 

Bruce, Thomas, 3rd Earl of Elgin and 2nd 
Earl of Ailesbury (1656-1741), 98-110 

Brudenell family, 110 

Brudenell-Bruce, Thomas, 110 

Brussels (Belgium), 110, 143 

Bryanston (Dorset), 228 

Bryn Celli Ddu (Anglesey), 125 i 

BSBI (Botanical Society of the British Isles), 
95 


Buckland Dinham (Somerset), 228 

buckthorns, 41 

Buddha, 37-8 

building materials: medieval, 229; 17th 
century, 229; 19th century, 229-30; 
modern, 28, 235; timber framing, 220— 
1, see also tiles 

Building News, The, 47 

buildings, 230; ?Late Iron Age, 154-5 Fig. 
8; Roman, 27-8, 232; Romano-British, 
208; ?Saxon, 237; ?medieval, 237; 
medieval, 233; post-medieval, 232, 234— 
5; 17th century, 220, 232; 20th century, 
232-3, see also villas; walls 

Buprestids (beetles), 141 

Burbage, 100; Wolfhall Park, 100, 101, 104 

Burbage (Bedfordshire), 105 

Burchard, A. M., 4 

burgages, 231, 235 

Burgess, C., 165 

burials see cremation burials; inhumations 

Burke, Edmund (1729-97), 113-14 

Burl, Aubrey, 210, 212; note on Fir Clump 
stone circle, 222 

Burma, 1 

Burrell (steam ploughs), 224 

busts, Roman, 35 

butresses, 206—7 

Buttermere (Cumbria), 112 

button covers, 183 

buttons, 174 


Caen (France), 80 

Caen stone, 50 

Caer Bladon, 238 

cairns, 204 

Calne, 82; chantry, 69; church, 77; hospital, 
71, 72; Quemerford, 72; Quemerford 
Mill, 231; St Edmund’s altar, 72 

Calne Without: Calstone, 72 

Cambridge, University, 156 

Cambridgeshire see Barnack; Earith; Monks 
Wood 

Camely (Somerset), 100 

Campania (Italy), 37 

Cariada Rosal, Sevilla (Spain), 179 

canals, 22 

Canham, Roy, 204 

Cannings Hundred, 80 

Cantharidae (beetles), 139 

Cantley Estate (Doncaster), 2 

Capel, Arthur, Earl of Essex (1631-83), 
101-2, 104 

Capel, Lady Elizabeth, 99 

Capel, Sir Henry, Lord Capel of fewkesbury 
(d. 1696), 102, 106, 109 

Capo di Monte (Italy), 118 

Caprifoliaceae (elders), 46 

Cardiff University, 151 

Cardigan, Earl of, 41 

Carlisle (Cumbria), Annetwell Street, 209 

Carn Madryn (Wales), 125 

carriers, 20 

Cary, J., 113 

Case, Humphrey, paper on Beaker presence 
at Wilsford 7, 161-94 

Castle Cary (Somerset), 100, 104 

Castlerigg (Cumbria), 125 


242 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


castles, 219 

CAT see Cotswold Archaeological Trust 
(CAT) 

Catacombs (Italy), 118 

Cathedral Oak, 41 

cats, burials, 229 

cattle, bones, 58 

Cecil, Elizabeth (née Brooke), 143, 145 

Cecil, Robert, 1st Earl of Salisbury and Ist 
Viscount Cranborne (c.1563—1612), 145 

Cecil family, 20 

Ceciloides acicula (snail), 60 

cedars of Lebanon, 43 

Celastraceae (spindle trees), 46 

Celts: human sacrifices, 15; ritual 
significance of water, 14 

Cementation Skanska, 230 

cemeteries, 232; Late Neolithic/Early 
Bronze Age, 55; Late Iron Age/Early 
Romano-British, 28; Roman, 27, 31-2; 
Romano-British, 13; Anglo-Saxon, 13; 
Saxon, 14; undated, 31; dispersed linear, 
215-18; surveys, 123, see also 
inhumations 

Central Europe: axes, 181—2; halberd- 
pendants, 183; hoards, 185 

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 208 

Cerambycidae (beetles), 139 

ceramics see pottery 

cereals, 60 

Ceriagrion tenellum (Small Red damselfly), 
67 

Cerne family, 239 

Cerylonidae (beetles), 139 

cesspits, post-medieval, 231 

Chaloner, Roger, 73-4 

Chandler, John, 228 

chantries, 69-76 

chapels, 229, 232 

charcoal, 28, 60, 178 

charcoal burners, 22 

Charles I, King, 100 

Charles II, King, 20, 21, 99 

Charlton, 210 

Charlton (North), 78, 231 

Chedglow Hundred, 78, 83 

cheekpieces, copper alloy, 37 

cheese markets, 20 

Chenopodiaceae (goosefoots), seeds, 60 

Chenopodium spp. (goosefoot), seeds, 60 

Cherhill: Plenderleath on, 239; Yatesbury, 
196, 202 

cherry trees, 41 

Chester, 34 

chestnut trees, 42, 43 

Childe, Gordon, 2 

Chillington (Somerset), 100 

Chippenham, 66, 79, 82, 228; church, 77; 
dragonflies, 68; Hardenhuish, 79; High 
Street, 231-2 

Chippenham Hundred, 79-80, 82 

Chirton, 81 . 

Chiseldon: Badbury, 208-10, 232, 233; 
Burderop Wood, 222; Fir Clump stone 
circle, 222 

Chock family, 75 

Christchurch (Dorset), 13 

Christian Malford, 83, 84—5 

churches, 232; Anglo-Saxon, 77-88; Late 
Saxon, 77-88; medieval, 232 

Church Faculty, 15 

Cicementone Hundred, 79, 83 

Cinque Ports, 143 

Cirencester (Gloucestershire), Bath Gate, 
13 

Cisidae (beetles), 139 

civil wars (1642-51), 99, 219 

Clare, Earl of, 23 

Clarendon Park, Petersfinger, 12 

Clark, Chris, 96 

Clarke, Bob, note on round barrow and 
cemetery at Boscombe Down West, 215— 
18 

Clark, Tony, 4 

clay, burnt, 60 

clay pipes, 236 


Cleal, Rosamund M. J., 197; note on pottery 
from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 57-8 

Cleridae (beetles), 139 

Clifford, Lady Jane, 100-1, 102, 104 

Clifford, Lord, 100 

Clontarf (County Dublin), 176, 181 

clothiers, 214 

Clyffe Pypard, 195, 196, 201, 202, 204; 
Stanmore, 201 

Cobham, 10th Baron, 143-7 

Cobham Hall (Kent), 143, 144 

Cocker, River (Cumbria), 112 

Codford, East Codford Farm, 232 

Coenagrion pulchellum (Variable 
damselfly), 65, 66 

coffins, 234; wooden, 13, 14 

coins, 33, 38, 39; Roman, 7, 211, 230; Early 
Roman, 28; Late Roman, 30; Anglo- 
Saxon, 218 

Cole, Albert, 2, 3 

Cole, Frances, 2, 3 

Coleoptera (beetles), saproxylic, 137 

Colerain, Lord, 101 

Colerne, 79; Euridge, 82 

Collier and Partners, Dr., 235 

Collingbourne Ducis, 100; Collingbourne 
Wood, 100, 104 

Collingbourne Kingston, 100, 104 

Colydiidae (beetles), 139 

Colydium elongatum (beetle), 141 

commoners, 22 

common land, settlement, 24 

Community Council for Wiltshire, 89, 91, 
92,94 

Community First, 94 

Compton Bassett: ?, 79; St Swithin’s 
Church, 232 

Congresbury (North Somerset), 227 

conifers, 42, 44 

conservation: collared urn, 189-90; 
legislation, 93-4 

Constantine I, 30 

Cooke, Edward, 103 

Cooke, G., 123 

Cooke, Nicholas, report on excavations near 
Cunetio, 26-32 

copper alloy objects, 177; Roman, 36; Late 
Roman, 30; Chinese, 37-8; dog collars, 
214; Magna Graecian, 37 

copper objects, 174, 175, 176, 178, 181; dog 
collars, 214 

coppicing, 42 

copyhold leases, 23 

Cordulegaster boltonii (Golden-ringed 
dragonfly), 67 

Cordulia aenea 
dragonfly), 66 

cores: flint, 9, see also flintwork 

Corney, Mark, 4; note on pottery from 
Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 57-8 

Cornwall, Duchy of, 19, 23 

Cornwall, Ian, 2 

Corsham, 80 

Corsican pine, 42 

Corsley, Cley Hill, 112 

Cory, Harold, 90 

Corylophidae (beetles), 139 

Cotes-d’Armor (Brittany), 178, 179, 180 

Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT), 233; 
evaluations, 231, 232, 236; excavations, 
230-1, 236 

Cotswolds, 99 

Cotswold Water Park (CWP), 65, 66, 93; 
spiders, 133 

Coulston, 214 

Council of the British Trust for 
Conservation Volunteers, 94 

Council of Europe, 93 

Council for the Protection of Rural England, 
93 

Countryside Liaison Officer, 89 

Court of Wards, 99 

Couzens, Tim, work reviewed, 239 

covers, 174 

Covey, Steve, paper on dragonflies in 
Wiltshire, 63-8 


(Downy Emerald 


Cowell, M., 35, 39 

Coxe, William, 118-19, 121 

crab-apple trees, 41, 42 

Cranborne Chase, 19, 20, 21-2, 23; Hoare 
on, 113 

Cratford, Christopher, 104, 108 

Crawford, O. G. S.; 33, 152 

Creighton, Oliver H., 219 

cremation burials, 171, 187; Roman, 27; 
Late Roman, 30-1, 32; mother and child, 
31 

Cricklade, 79, 81, 233; St Mary’s Church, 
232; St Sampson’s Church, 81-2; 
spiders, 131 

Cricklade Hundred, 81 

Crocker, Abraham, 122 

Crocker, Edmund, 122 

Crocker, Phillip, 121, 122, 126, 163; 
drawings, 116, 117, 123, 124 

Croft (North Yorkshire), 228 

crop circles, 149 

cropmarks, 28, 149-59 

crops, innovations, 22 

Cross, Nicholas, 214 

Cross, S. A., 4 

Cross, Susan, 91, 92, 94 

Crudwell, 79, 83, 85; All Saints Church, 82; 
Chelworth, 82, 83; Eastcourt, 82, 83; 
Murcott, 83 

Crummock Lake (Cumbria), 112 

Cucujidae (beetles), 139 

Culduthel Mains (Highland), 172, 174 

Culhwch, 227 

Culling, Ted, 93, 95 

cultivation furrows, 231 

cultural contacts: Breton, 161; central 
European, 161; Irish, 161 

culverts, stone, 232 

Cumbria see Buttermere; Carlisle; 
Castlerigg; Cocker, River; Crummock 
Lake; Long Meg; Lorton, Vale of; 
Mayburgh Henge 

Cunetio, 4, 36; artefacts, 39; excavations, 
26-32; extent, 27-8 

Cunnington, Elizabeth, 162 

Cunnington, Maud Edith, 33 

Cunnington, William, 117, 118-19, 120-2, 
123, 124—5, 126; excavations, 161-3, 167, 
185; restoration work, 163-4, 189 

Cupid (god), 36-7 

Cupressaceae (cypresses), 44 

cups: Aldbourne type, 181, 183; conical, 
173, 177; drinking, 185; grape cups, 162, 
171, 173, 177; incense, 163; Perforated- 
Wall, 171, 173, 177 

Curculionidae (weevils), 139 

curios, 38-9 

Curteys, William, 75 

Cuthbert, Abbot, 81 

CWP see Cotswold Water Park (CWP) 

Cybele (goddess), 36 

Cyrenaica (Libya), 38 


daggers, 177, 179, 187; bronze, 184; 
Camerton type, 183; flint, 39; Snowshill 
type, 183-5 

Damen Associates, 235 

Damerham (Hants), 19, 23; church, 77 

damselflies, 64-8 

Darby, Elisabeth, paper on East Knoyle 
national school, 47-53 

Darby, Michael, 63; note on glow-worms in 
Wiltshire, 222-4; paper on saproxylic 
status of Savernake Forest, 137-42; paper 
on the Wiltshire Natural History Forum, 
89-97 

Darby and Joan, seed picture, 207-8 

d’Argenteau, Charlotte Jacqueline (d. 1710), 
110 

Darvill, T., 61 

Dauntsey, Smithcot, 79 

Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society, 
133; publications, 63 

David, Andrew, paper on stone circle at 
Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 

Davies, Joan, 46, 141 


INDEX 


Davy, Sir Humphry (1778-1829), 120 

De Antiquitate, 84 

deer, 20 

Defence Estates Organisation (DEO), 236 

Defence Evaluation and Research Agency 
(DERA), 215; Archaeological 
Management Plan, 217 

defences, 235; Roman, 27; Saxon, 231-2 

dendrochronology, 12 

dental calculus, 12 

DEO (Defence Estates Organisation), 236 

Department of the Environment (DoE), 220 

DERA see Defence Evaluation and 
Research Agency (DERA) 

Derby, 1 

Derby County Football Club, 1 

Dermestidae (beetles), 139 

d’Esneux, Comte, 110 

Development Commission, 89 

Devereux, Nicholas, 219 

Devizes, 80, 89; Bath Road, 91; Braeside 
Residential Centre, 90; The Brittox, 232; 
dragonflies, 63; St Joseph’s Place, 91; 
Southbroom, 209-10;Wyndhams, 91, 92 

Devizes Museum see Wiltshire Heritage 
Museum (WHM) 

Devizes Waterworks, 35 

Devon: manors, 20, see also Hammeldon 

Dewsbury (Kirklees), 227 

dies, 219 

Dieskau (Germany), 180, 181 

Dillon, Patrick, 93 

Dinan (Brittany), 228 

disc-brooches: Middle Saxon, 218-19; bone 
moulds, 219; designs, 218, 219 

discs, amber, 174 

ditches, 150, 154-5 Fig. 7, 9, 11, 159, 205, 
230; prehistoric, 235; Neolithic, 56; Late 
Neolithic, 152, 154; Late Bronze Age/ 
Early Iron Age, 229; Iron Age, 230; 
Roman, 27; Early Roman, 28-30; Saxon, 
231-2; medieval, 31, 231, 233, 236; 
modern, 233; undated, 31; ring, 149, 203, 
204, see also gullies; pits 

Doddington and Farthing, 49 

DoE (Department of the Environment), 220 

dog collars, early, 213-14 

Domesday Book, 82, 83, 84; hundreds, 77, 
81, 85; manors, 80; Melchesham, 228 

Domesday Survey, 7 

Doncaster, 2 

Donhead St Andrew, Hooke, 22 

Donovan, Peter, note on steam cultivation 
during World War I, 224 

Donovan Construction (SW) Ltd, 229 

Don Petro, 145 

Doore, John, 20 

Dorchester (Dorset), Mount Pleasant, 181, 
182 

Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxon), 2 

Dorset, 60, 171, 177; barrows, 161, 179, 
183, 185; dragonflies, 63, 67; manors, 19, 
20, 23, see also Blagdon Hill; Boveridge; 
Briantspuddle; Bryanston; Christchurch; 
Gillingham; Hengistbury Head; 
Lulworth Castle; Martin; Motcombe; 
Pentridge; Portland; Shaftesbury; 
Sherborne; Stalbridge; Swanage; 
Symondsbury; Tolpuddle Ball; Ulwell; 
Weymouth; Wimbourne St Giles; 
Winterbourne St Martin 

Douglas firs, 42 

Douglas, James, 123; Nenia Britannica 
(1793), 120 

Dowman, Edward, 112 

Downton: Barford Park Farm, 22; Charlton 
Plantation, 12; church, 77; Downton 
Tannery, 232-3; illegal dwellings, 24; 
manorial stewards, 19-25; New Court 
Farm, 22; Standlynch, 22; voters, 24; 
Witherington Farm, 20, 22 

dragonflies: larvae, 64; in Wiltshire, 63-8 

drainage, 22 

drains, 9, 235; stone-lined, 236 

Drake, Sir Francis (c.1540—96), 145 

Driffield (East Riding of Yorkshire), 172, 174 


driftwood, Roman, 28 

drownings, ritual, 15 

Droxford (Hants), 12 

Druids, 125-6, 196 

Duke, John, 8 

Duke’s Vaunt [Font] Oak, 41 

Dunlow Hundred, 80, 85 

Dun, River, 69 

Dunstan, 85 

Durmast oak (sessile oak), 41 

Durnford: figurine, 225-7; High Post, 159; 
Netton, 159; Ogbury Camp, 7, 154—5 
Fig. 7, 156, 157, 158; Salisbury Clumps, 
154-5 Fig. 7, 157 

Durrington, 20; Durrington Walls, 155; 
Horne and Roberts Barracks, 233; 
Larkhill, 60, 233; Royal School of 
Artillery, 233; Watson Road, 233 

Dutch Elm disease, 41 


Earith (Cambridgeshire), 209 

earthworks: Late Iron Age, 27; medieval, 
236; surveys, 7, 123, 236, see also ditches; 
hillforts; mottes; mounds 

East Anglia, 171, 227; amber sources, 187; 
barrows, 169, 183; beakers, 170; urns, 
167 

East Kennett, Langdean, 195 

East Knoyle: Clouds Estate, 48; Knoyle 
House, 47, 48; national school, 47-53 

Eastleigh (Hants), 159 

Eastman, John, 24 

Easton, 104, 105, 109; chantry, 69; manor, 
99 

Easton Grey, 80, 231 

East Sussex, 50 

East Yorkshire, 170 

Ecgfrith, King, 81 

Edes, Henry, 75 

Edgar, King, 85 

Edridge, H., 121 

Education Act (1870), 47 

Edward I, King, 70 

Edward IV, King, 75 

Edward VI, King, 73, 74 

Edward the Confessor, 227 

Edward the Martyr, 206 

Egypt, 1, 50 

Egyptian antiquities, 38 

Elateridae (beetles), 139 

elder trees, 41 

elections, 25 

Elizabeth I, Queen, 143 

Elliott, Edward, 91, 96 

El Mar (Brittany), 177 

Elswy, Abbot, 84 

Emperor dragonfly, 63 

enclosures, 154—5 Figs. 1, 7-9, 11, 157, 158- 
9, 231; Neolithic, 158; Late Neolithic, 
149-55; ?Bronze Age, 158; ?>Late Bronze 
Age, 236; Late Iron Age, 27-8; Roman, 
157, 158; 159; medieval, 236; 
encroachments, 24; palisaded, 149-55, 
see also hillforts; settlements 

Endomychidae (beetles), 139 

Enford, 100, 233; Chisenbury, 100 

England, 125 

English Channel, 170, 177 

English elms, 41 

English Heritage, i51, 154, 229; Aerial 
Survey section, 149; Designed 
Landscapes team, 151; Field Monument 
Warden, 197; fieldwork, 230 

English Nature, 89, 137, 138, 141 

Ericaceae (rhododendrons), 45 

Erotylidae (beetles), 139 

Erythromma viridulum (Small Red-eyed 
damselfly), 68 

Essex, George, 76 

Essex: chantries, 73, see also Great 
Chesterford; Helion Bumstead 

Ethelred, King, 206 

ethyl methacrylate adhesive, 190 

Eton College (Windsor and Maidenhead), 
47 

Etruria, 34, 37 


243 


Etruria (Staffordshire), 163 

Etruscan antiquities, 38 

Etruscan inscriptions, 34 

Eugenius III, Pope, 80, 82, 83 
European Conservation Year (1970), 93 
European Wetlands Year (1976), 93 
Evans, Ian, 92 

Everleigh, 126 

Evison, Vera, 2 

executions, 13, 14, 15 


Fabaceae (beans and acacias), 46 

Fabergé, 171 

Fagaceae (trees and shrubs), 45 

fairs, 20, 24 

Falkner, John, 213 

Farman, Peter, 72 

farmers, yeomen, 19-20 

Farmer, Samuel William, 225 

farming, improvements, 22 

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group 
(FWAG), 89, 94 

Farmoor Reservoir (Oxon), 230 

farms, Romano-British, 208 

Farrow, Diana, 94 

Fassbinder, Joerg, paper on stone circle at 
Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 

Fauconer, John, 213 

Fauconer family, 214 

Faversham (Kent), 180 

Fenwick, Sir John, 109, 110 

Feuersbrunn (Austria), 182 

fibulae, Italian, 39 

Field, David, paper on stone circle at 
Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 

field maples, 41, 42 

fields, Celtic, 156 

field surveys, Wilsford cum Lake, 9 

field systems, 55, 154—5 Figs. 7—9, 11, 230, 
231; prehistoric, 7, 149-50, 156-7, 233; 
?Bronze Age, 157; Roman, 156; medieval, 
157,231 

Figheldean, 235; Robin Hood’s Ball, 236 

figurines: >Roman, 33, 34, 35-7; Roman, 
208-10; Romano-British, 225-7; 
Chinese, 33; Etruscan, 33, 34-5; from 
Avebury, 33-9 

Finch, Sir Heneage, 102, 104 

Firsdown, Winterbourne Down, 32 

First World War, steam ploughing, 224—5 

fir trees, 42 

Fittleton, Weather Hill Firs, 224 

Fitzpatrick, Andrew, 186 

flakes, flint, 7, 57, 58, see also flintwork 

Flanders, 103 

Flaxman, R. L., 113 

Fleming, A., 217 

Flemings, 228 

flints: burnt, 9, 12, 235; crushed, 57; 
knapped, 236; struck, 231, 235 

flint tools, ?Neolithic, 235 

flintwork, 12, 178, 233; prehistoric, 235; 
Palaeolithic, 7; Mesolithic, 39, 237; 
Neolithic, 56, 57, 236; Late Neolithic, 
152; Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, 9, 
237; Bronze Age, 236; Early Bronze Age, 
39; Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; 
Romano-British, 237, see also adzes; 
arrowheads; axes; blades; cores; flakes, 
flint; knives; scrapers; tools 

floors: medieval, 233, 235; post-medieval, 
231 

Flora of Wiltshire, The, 89, 95, 96 

Florence (Italy), 35 

Fode, Richard le, 73 

foil, gold, 172 

food vessels, 165, 177, 186 

footpads, 20 

Forcalquier-La Fare (France), 178 

Forest Enterprises, 138 

Forestry Authority, 41 

Forestry Commission, 90 

forests, Royal, 227 

forts, Roman, 27 

Fortuna (goddess), 37 

fossils, 163 


244 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Fowles, A. P., 138 

France, 103, 109, 110; dragonflies, 68, see 
also Brittany; Caen; Forcalquier-La Fare; 
Paris; St Fiacre; St Wandrille 

Frankford (County Offaly), 180 

Franks, A. W., 38 

French, K., 224 

Fresia, 15 

Friends of Oakfrith Wood, The, 236 

Fuller, Michael, The Lepidoptera of 
Wiltshire (1995), 96 

funerary monuments, 154—5 Fig. 7; Bronze 
Age, 156 

funerary urns, 165 

fungi, arboreal, effects on archaeological 
remains, 58 

Furstengraber (Princely Graves), 181, 182, 
185 


FWAG (Farming and Wildlife Advisory 
Group), 89, 94 
Fyfield, Fyfield Down, 187 


Gale, Roger, 210 

Gane, Michael, 93 

gardens, ornamental, 114 

garrisons, 219-20 

Garsdon, church, 79 

Garton Slack (East Riding of Yorkshire), 166 

Gaul, 12 

Gauntlett, William Bowle, 225 

geans, 42 

Gedye, Ionye, 2 

Genius figurines, 208-10 

geophysics: Charlton, 231; Salisbury Plain 
Training Area, 236;Winterbourne Bassett 
stone circle, 197-201, 205 

Geoscan FM36 (magnetometer), 198 

Geoscan RM 15 (resistivity meter), 198 

Gerard, Thomas, 208 

Gerloff, Sabine, 177, 179, 180, 186 

Germany, 1, 12; tribes, 14, see also Dieskau; 
Helmsdorf; Leubingen; Mecklenburg; 
Neuenheilingen; Saxo-Thuringia; Singen 

Ghana, 1 

Gibbs, V., 206 

Gifford, John, 73 

Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae, 227 

Gillam, Beatrice, 90, 93, 94-5, 96 

Gilles, John, 20 

Gillingham (Dorset), 20, 22, 23 

Gingell, Chris, 197 

Ginkgoaceae (ginkgo trees), 44 

glass vessels, Late Roman, 30 

Glastonbury Abbey (Somerset), 77, 78, 83— 
4,85 

Gleeson Homes, 235 

global warming, 68 

Gloucestershire, 69, 143; dragonflies, 66, see 
also Ashley; Cirencester; Kemble; Long 
Newnton; Sezincote; Tormarton; Uley 

glow-worms, 222—4 

Goddard, Edward Hesketh, 163 

Godney (Somerset), 100 

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749-1832), 
124 

gold, sources, 187 

gold objects, 162, 171, 172, 181, 183, 188; 
Beaker, 172, 174-7, 178; Wessex Linear 
Style, 171, 178, 179, 183 

Goole, Mr, 21 

Gordon, Alexander, 120 

Gough, Richard, 119, 120 

Gough Maps, 201 

gradiometers, 197 

gradiometer surveys, 197-201 

Grady, Damian, paper on 
photography, 148-60. 

Grafton, Sudden [Sutton] Park, 104 

grand fir, 42 

Grant, Thomas, 74 

grasses, 22 

grave covers, timber, 9-12, 13, 15 

Great Bedwyn, 38, 100, 104; dragonflies, 66; 
glow-worms, 224 

Great Bircham (Norfolk), 171, 183, 185, 187 

Great Chesterford (Essex), 2, 4 


aerial 


Greater London see Twickenham 

Great Somerford, Startley, 78 

Great War, steam ploughing, 224—5 

Great Wishford: Ebsbury Hill, 156, 158; 
Grovely Wood, 224 

Greece, 50 

Greek antiquities, 38 

Green, Dave, 95 

Greene, Thomas, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24-5 

Greig, M. K., 170 

Grimmesden, John, 73 

Grimmesden, Margaret, 73 

Grimmesden, Walter, 73 

Grinsell, Leslie V., 33, 39, 161, 204 

Grittleton, 84; Littleton Drew, 85 

Grose, Donald, The Flora of Wiltshire 
(1957), 95 

Grose, Francis, 119 

Grosvenor, Richard de Aquila, 48 

Guildford Museum (Surrey), 2 

gullies, 230, see also ditches 

Gunter, Anne, 75 

Gunter, Brian, 75 

Gwynedd, 227 


Haitter, Henry, 20 

halberd-pendants, 171, 181-2, 183 

halberds, 174, 178, 179, 181, 182; Irish, 180, 
183 

Hale, R., 214 

Halifax, Lord, 108 

Ham Hill stone, 47, 49 

Hamilton-Dyer, Sheila, 61; note on animal 
bone from Beehive Junction, Salisbury, 
58-9 

Hamley, F. G., 214 

Hammeldon (Devon), 171, 183, 185 

hammer beams, 220-1 

Ham (Middlesex), 20 

Hampshire, 92, 102, 112, 171, 177; 
dragonflies, 67; spiders, 132, see also 
Andover; Damerham; Droxford; 
Eastleigh; Kingsclere; New Forest; 
Owlesbury; Portchester; Ringwood; 
Southampton; Weyhill; Winchester 

Hamwic, 218, 219 

Hankerton, 83 

Hanley, Ralph, 75 

Harcourt, Godfrey, 108 

Harding, P., 137 

hares, 21 

Harris, Kate, paper on the Cobham family 
portrait at Longleat, 143—7 

Hatch Beauchamp (Somerset), 100 

Hatcher, Thomas, 24 

Hatfield (Herts), 20 

Hatfield House (Herts), 23 

Hawkes, C. F. C., 39 

Hawkes, Christopher, 4 

hawthorns, 41 

Haycock, D., 114 

Haycock, Lorna, 1 

hazelnuts, remains, 60 

hazel trees, 41, 42, 237 

hearths, medieval, 235 

Heath, Beverley, 90 

Heaton, Michael: note on roof modification 
at 47 The Close, Salisbury, 220-2; report 
on excavations at Beehive Junction, 54— 
62 

Hedache, Thomas, 74 

Helion Bumstead (Essex), 228 

Helléan (Brittany), 228 

Helmsdorf (Germany), 181—2 

henge monuments, 2, 186, 195 

Hengistbury Head (Bournemouth), 177, 
181, 1833, 185, 187;, barrows,, 17:0; 
cremation burials, 171 

Henig, Martin: note on figurine from 
Badbury, 208-10; note on Romano- 
British figurine from near Durnford, 
225-7 

Henry VIII, King, 47, 73, 75 

Henry, Duke of Lancaster, 73 

Herculaneum (Italy), 118 

Hereford and Worcester see Moccas Park; 


Pirton Pools; Worcester 

Hermes (god), 35 

Hertfordshire: chantries, 73, see also 
Hatfield; Hatfield House; Verulamium 

Heytesbury: chantry, 69, 72; Moss House, 
163 

Heytesbury Hundred, 84 

Heywood: Clanger Wood, 66; Fulling Bridge 
Farm, 66 

Hidden, Norman, paper on the chantry of 
Holy Trinity at Hungerford, 69-76 

Higgins, Peter, note on plant, mollusc and 
insect remains from Beehive Junction, 
Salisbury, 60 

highwaymen, 20 

Highworth, 36 

hillforts, 150, 151; Iron Age, 7, see also 
enclosures; specific sites 

Hilmarton, Highway, 82 

Hilperton, Hilperton Marsh, 67 

Hindon, 145 

Hinton, David A.: note on disc-brooch from 
Upavon, 218-19; note on excavations at 
St Laurence’s Chapel, Bradford-on- 
Avon, 206-7 

hippocamps, 37 

Hippocastanaceae (chestnuts), 46 

Histeridae (beetles), 138 

Hoare, Henry (1705-85), 114, 117 

Hoare, Hester, 117-18, 163 

Hoare, Sir Richard Colt (1758-1838): The 
Ancient History of South and North 
Wiltshire (1812; 1821), 112, 115, 117, 


120, 122-6, 196; archaeological 
antiquarianism, 111—28; bibliomania, 
124-5; criticisms, 111-12, 126; 


excavations, 161-3, 182, 187; surveys, 
122-4, 126 

Hoare’s Bank, 20 

Hobbes, Thomas, 238 

Hobbs, Steven, note on Clack Mount, 
Bradenstoke, 219-20 

Hodder, Ian, 1, 4 

Holland, dragonflies, 68 

Holles, Denzil, 23 

holly trees, 41 

Holt, 227 - 

Home Office, excavation licences, 15-16 

Hooper, Thomas, 23 

Hopgrass, Robert, 73, 74 

Hopper-Bishop, Alison, note on 
conservation of collared urn from 
Wilsford 7, 189-90 

hornbeams, 41, 42, 43 

Horningsham: Centre Parcs, 67; Longleat, 
19, 23-4, 41, 46; Longleat Forest, 67; 
Longleat House, 143-7 

horse chestnut trees, 43 

horses, in agriculture, 225 

Horton, Philip, 90, 91, 93 

hospitals, 71, 72 

Household Cavalry, 1 

houses, on common land, 24 

Howell, Patricia, 236 

Huish, Gopher Wood, 66 

Hull, M. R., 39 

Humberside see Driffield; Garton Slack; 
‘Towthorpe 

Humphreys, Peter, 218 

Hungerford, Geva, 70, 71 

Hungerford, Sir Robert de, 69, 70-1, 72, 
73, 74, 76 

Hungerford, Walter, Lord Hungerford, 72 

Hungerford (West Berkshire): Bell Inn, 75; 
Chantry Field, 74; Charlton, 70, 71, 73, 
74; Charnham Street, 74, 75; Culver 
House, 74; Hidden tithing, 72; Holy 
Trinity chantry, 69-76; Hopgrass, 69, 73, 
74, 75, 76; North Standen, 71; St John’s 
priory, 71—2; St Lawrence’s Church, 71; 
St Mary’s chantry, 70, 71-2, 73, 74, 75, 
76; Sandon, 70, 71, 73, 74; South 
Standen, 71; Standen Hussey, 71 

Hutchison, Ann, 90, 95 

Hyde, Henry, 2nd Earl of Clarendon (1638-— 
1709), 104, 105, 106, 108, 109 


INDEX 


Hyde, Laurence, Earl of Rochester (1641— 
1711), 105, 108 
Hyman, P., 138 


Idmiston, Porton, Buller Park, 233 

IEC (Index of Ecological Continuity), 137, 
138, 140, 141 

Ilminster (Somerset), 100, 104 

Imerys Minerals Limited, 235 

Ina, King, 118 

Index of Ecological Continuity (IEC), 137, 
138, 140, 141 

inductive reasoning, Baconian, 111, 120, 
121, 122 

inhumations, 117, 118; Beaker, 185-8; 
Bronze Age, 4; Iron Age, 13; Late Iron 
Age/Early Romano-British, 28; Roman, 
31-2; Late Romano-British, 12; Anglo- 
Saxon, 12-13; 5th/6th century, 7-18; 
Saxon, 2, 4; medieval, 234; burial 
postures, 12, 13, 14, 31, 162; early 
theories, 121; excavation legislation, 15; 
prone, 13; reburial, 15-16; in watery 
contexts, 13-14, 16; Wessex Series 
burials, 170-2 

Inizan, M.-L., 58 

Innocent II, Pope, 80 

inscriptions (memorials), Norman French, 
70 


insect remains, 59, 60 

Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, 92 

Inventaria Archaeologica, 4 

inventories, 146—7 

Invertebrate Site Register (ISR), 137, 138, 
139 

Ireland, 112, 117, 118, 125, 161; axes, 181; 
Beaker pottery, 165, 170; halberds, 180, 
183, see also Clontarf; Frankford; Killaha 
East; Knockadoon; Knowth; Largantea; 
Meath; Monknewton; Munster; 
Newgrange; Whitespots 

iron objects: Anglo-Saxon, 233; dog collars, 
214 

Irthlingborough (Northamptonshire), 175 

Irvine, J. T., 206 

Ischnomera caerulea (beetle), 137, 141 

Ischnura elegans (Blue-tailed damselfly), 65, 
66 

Ischnura pumilio (Scarce Blue-tailed 
damselfly), 65-6 

Islamic styles, in school architecture, 47-53 

ISR (Invertebrate Site Register), 137, 138, 
139 

Italian antiquities, 38 

Italy, 38, 48, 118, see also Belmonte-Picenza; 
Campania; Capo di Monte; Catacombs; 
Florence; Herculaneum; Magna Graecia; 
Monserrato; Nemi; Orvieto; Pompeii; 
Todi; Verona; Vesuvius 


jade objects, 178 

James I, King, 19 

James II, King, 105, 106, 109 
Jenkins, Leoline, 102 

jennets, 145 

Jersey, 177 

jet objects, 162, 171, 172, 177, 178 
jewellery see beads; disc-brooches 
Job Creation Programme, 92 
Jocelin, Bishop, 80 

John, Abbot, 81 

John Fowler & Co., 224, 225 
Johnson, George, 100, 101 

Jolby (North Yorkshire), 228 
Jones, Samuel, 214 

Juglandaceae (walnuts), 45 

Julius Agricola, 210 

Juno (god), 35, 36 

Jupiter Capitolinus, 35 


Keabog (Aberdeenshire), 172 

Kemble (Gloucestershire), 79, 83 

Kemish, Mary, 103 

Kempton Park (Surrey), 20 

Kennet and Avon Canal, Dundas Aqueduct, 
66 


Kennet District Council, 229 

Kennet, River, 27, 28, 31, 151-2; tributaries, 
195-6; winterbournes, 196 

Kent see Cobham Hall; Faversham; Leeds 
Castle; Richborough; Rochester 

Kenyon, Kathleen, 2 

Kerney, M. P., 60 

Kernonen (Brittany), 180, 183, 187 

Killaha East (County Kerry), 182 

kilns, Romano-British, 2, 4 

Kilvert, Francis, 239 

King of Limbs Oak, 41 

Kingsbridge Hundred, 79, 85 

Kingsclere (Hants), 213-14 

Kings Oak South West, 231 

Kingston Deverill, 84; Monkton Deverill, 84 

Kington Langley, 84 

Kington St Michael, 84 

Kirby, Colin, note on round barrow and 
cemetery at Boscombe Down West, 215— 
18 

Kitson (steam ploughs), 224 

Knights of St John, 229 

Knipton (Leicestershire), 172 

knives: Beaker, 176, 177-8; Armorico- 
British type, 179-80, 181, 183; Breton, 
178-9, 183; bronze, 180, 181-5; 
Ciempozuelos Beaker type, 179; copper, 
176, 177-8, 182; metal-hilted, 180; 
midrib, 179-80, 183, 184; Quimperlé 
type, 178, 179, 180; riveted, 180; 
Rumeédon style, 178, 179, 183; Trévérec 
type, 179, 180, see also blades 

Knockadoon (Ireland), 170 

Knook: Knook Manor, 207-8; spiders, 131, 
133 

Knowth (Ireland), 170 

Krause, R., 179 


Labruzzi, Carlo, 118, 119, 122 

Lackham College of Agriculture, 90, 93, 94, 
95, 96 

lakes, construction, 7 

Lake Zurich (Switzerland), 174, 180, 182, 
187 

Lamacraft, G. P., 4 

Lambourn (West Berkshire), 177, 186 

Lambourn Downs (West Berkshire), 156, 
196 

Lambourne (stream), 195-6, 202, 204 

La Motta (Portugal), 179 

Lampyris noctiluca (glow-worm), 222—4 

Lamyatt Beacon (Somerset), 226 

Lanark Moor (South Lanarkshire), 166 

Lancaster, Jubilee Tower, 14 

Lancaster, Duchy of, 71, 73, 76 

Landford: Landford Bog, 67; Landford 
Heath SSSI, 66, 67 

landscapes, Hoare’s approach, 112-15 

Lane, Stewart, 92, 95 

Langley Burrell Without, 84 

Langley Fitzurze see Kington Langley 

Langsloo, Thomas, 75 

Lansdowne, Lord, 239 

lararia, 3 is 226 

larch trees, 42 

Largantea (Ireland), 170 

larvae, dipterous, 60 

Lathridiidae (beetles), 139 

Latin inscriptions, 34 

Latium, 34 

Latton, 233 

Lauraceae (laurels), 45 

Laverstock, Beehive Park and Ride facility, 
54-62 

Law Hill (Angus), 170 

Lawrence, A. W., 1 

Lawrence, T. E., 1 

Lawson’s cypress, 42, 43 

Lea and Cleverton, Garsdon, 79 

lead alloy objects, 218-19 

leather, 237 

Lechlade (Swindon), 177, 220 

Leeds, Steam Plough Works, 224 

Leeds Castle (Kent), 213 

Legio I Augusta, 211 


245 


Leguminosae (legumes), 46 

Leicestershire see Knipton; Lockington 

Leicester University, Museums Course, 90 

Leigh, Upper Waterhay Meadows, 131 

Leighton, Sir Baldwyn, 49 

Leighton, Frederic, 48-9, 50 

Leiodidae (beetles), 138 

Leki Male (Poland), 181-2 

Leland, John, 238 

Leman, Thomas, 121-2 

Leptura sexguttata (beetle), 137, 141 

Lesmurdie (Moray), 166 

Leubingen (Germany), 181-2 

Libellula depressa (Broad-bodied chaser 
dragonfly), 65 

Libellula fulva (Scarce Chaser dragonfly), 
66-7 

Libya, 38 

lichens, 137 ‘ 

Liddington, 37, 233; Liddington Castle, 
150, 151, 233; Liddington Farm, 233-4; 
Liddington Hill, 208 

lime trees, 42 

linears, 9; prehistoric, 157—8; Late Neolithic/ 
Early Bronze Age, 55, see also ditches 

Linford, Neil, paper on stone circle at 
Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 

Listed Building Consent, 232 

Little Bedwyn, 224; Chisbury, 104 

Little Cressingham (Norfolk), 170, 171, 
179, 183, 185, 187 

livestock, 20, 21, 22 

Llanbleddian (Vale of Glamorgan), Breach 
Farm, 181, 183, 185 

Llandaff, Book of, 227 

Locke, John (1632-1704), 113 

Lockington (Leicestershire), 176, 177, 178— 
9, 182 

London, 73, 100, 102, 103, 104, 145; 
Ailesbury House, 109; Belgrave Square, 
48; bone moulds, 219; British Museum, 
37; cemeteries, 13; Chelsea House, 110; 
Eaton Square, 48; figurines, 34, 210; 
Holland Park Road, 48, 49; House of 
Commons, 94, 106, 108, 109; Houses of 
Parliament, 98; inhumations, 13; 
Leighton House, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52; 
Melbury Road, 49; National Gallery, 190; 
Regent’s Park, 1-2; Roman, 38; St John’s 
Lodge, 1; South Kensington Museum, 
52; Tower of London, 99, 109; tradesmen, 
20; University of London Institute of 
Archaeology, 1-2; Westminster Abbey, 
81-2; Zoo, 2 

Long, Catherine, 239 

Long, C. E., 239 

Long, Robert, 239 

Long family, 239 

Longbridge Deverill, 84; Sand Hill 
Reservoir, 234 

Longford, M., 74 

Long Meg (Cumbria), 125 

Long Newnton (Gloucestershire), 79 

Longworth, I. H., 163, 165 

Lorton, Vale of (Cumbria), 112 

Lovelake, William, 74 

Low Countries, 22 

Loyn, H. R., 86 

Lucanidae (beetles), 138-9 

Luckington, Alderton, 80 

Ludlow (Shropshire), 101 

Lukis, William Collings, 196-7, 201, 204, 
210 

Lulworth Castle (Dorset), 21, 22 

lunulae, Irish, 187-8 

Luton, 66 

Lycidae (beetles), 139 

lynchets, 235 

Lyneham, 79, 219 

Lysanders (aircraft), 159 


Mabinogion, 227 

McCarter, Nigel, 95 

McClain, Molly, paper on the Seymour 
Estate, 98-110 

macehead mountings, gold, 174 


246 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


maceheads, 181 

McKinley, Jacqueline I., report on 
excavations at Lake, 7-18 

madder, 22 

Maddock, Alison, 90, 92 

Maelgwn (d. 547), 227 

Maglocu, 227, 228 

Maglocunos, 227 

Magna Graecia (Italy), 37 

magnetometers, 198; caesium, 197, 198 

magnetometer surveys, 197-201, 205 

Magnoliaceae (magnolias), 45 

Makgill-Crichton-Maitland, Margaret 
(Marjorie), 207-8 

Makgill-Crichton-Maitland, Mary Esther, 
207-8 

malaise and intercept traps, 141 

Malden [Maldon] (Bedfordshire), 105 

Mallowan, Max, 2 

Malmesbury, William of, 238 

Malmesbury, 228; Cowfold, 83; garrisons, 
219, 220; works on, 238-9; Pinkney, 80; 
St Mary Westport Church, 78, 79 

Malmesbury Abbey, 238; late Saxon 
parochial development, 77-88 

Maltravers, John, 73, 74 

mammals, 59 

Manby, Terry, 165 

manorial stewards: 17th century, 19-25; law 
suits, 21; political activities, 24—5; roles, 
19, 23-4; salaries, 20 

manors, 19 

maple trees, 41, 42, 43 

maps, 122-3 

marble tablets, 70 

Marden, 125 

Marishe, Alexander de, 74 

Market Lavington, 89 

markets, 20 

Marlborough, 20, 33, 104; St Martin’s 
Mews, 234 

Marlborough College, College Field, 65 

Marlborough College Natural History 
Society, Report, 63, 65 

Marlborough Downs, 156, 208 

Marsden, B. M., 117 

Mars (god), 37, 38; figurine, 35 

Marshall, Nicholas, 74 

Marshman, Michael, review by, 239 

Martin (Dorset), 21 

Martin—Clark proton magnetometer, 4 

Martock (Somerset), 145 

Mary I, Queen, 143 

Mary II, Queen, 105, 106 

Mayburgh Henge (Cumbria), 125 

Meare (Somerset), 100 

Meath (Ireland), 125 

Mecklenburg (Germany), 182 

megaliths, 125 

Meilic, 227 

Meilyg, 227 

Melandryidae (beetles), 139 

Melchbourne (Bedfordshire), 227 

Melchesham, 227, 228 

Melchi, 227-8 

Melksham, 66; Blackmore Forest, 227; 
church, 77; Forest Farm, 227; Gifford’s 
Surgery, 234-5; Lowbourne, 234-5; 
Melksham Forest, 227, 228; place- 
names, 227-8 

Melksham Without, Shaw, 227 

Melyridae (beetles), 139 

Melz II hoard, 182 

memorials, 19 

Mercia, 81 

Mercury, figurine, 225—7 

Mere, 19, 49 

Meta spp. (spiders), 134, 136 

Meta bourneti (spider), 136 

Meta menardi (spider), 136 

metal, Munster type, 180 

metal detectors, 55, 208 

metalwork, 152; 12th century, 230; dog 
collars, 213-14, see also arrowheads; 
blades; copper alloy objects; gold objects; 
iron objects; knives; lead alloy objects; 


nails; scrapers; tools 

Metellina spp. (spiders), 129, 134-6 

Metellina mengei (spider), 134-5 

Metellina merianae (spider), 135, 136 

Metellina segmentata (spider), 134, 135, 
136 

Meyer, H., 121 

MGC/V&A Purchase Grant Fund, 208 

middens: Late Roman, 31, 32; post- 
medieval, 231 

Middle East, 1 

Middlesex, 102, see also Ham 

midland hawthorn, 41 

Midlands, 60, 169 

Migdale (Highland), 174, 179 

Mildenhall, 26—32; Forest Hill, 27, see also 
Cunetio 

Milford, R. N., 47, 49 

military remains, 20th century, 159 

millipedes, remains, 60 

mill ponds, 231 

mills, 231 

Minety, 66, 231; church, 79 

Ministry of Defence (MOD), 93, 96 

Ministry of Munitions, 225 

Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, 2, 
4 


mints, 218 

Mitchell (née Lamacraft), G. P., 4 
Moccas Park (Hereford and Worcester), 141 
modius, 35 

MOD (Ministry of Defence), 93, 96 
mollusc remains, 59, 60 

Monarch Oak see Cathedral Oak 
Money, Walter, 70 

Monknewton (County Meath), 177 
Monks Wood (Cambridgeshire), 63, 92 
Monkton Farleigh, 79 

Monmouth Rebellion (1685), 105 
Monserrato (Italy), 114 

Montague, Becky, 197 

Monterey pine, 43 

Mont Ubé (Jersey), 177 
monuments, British, 125 

Moore, J., 61 

Moore, John, 24 

Moore, Nicholas, 20 

Morbihan (France), 178, 180 
Mordellidae (beetles), 139 

More, William, 219, 220 

Morrison, Charles, 94 

Morrows, 7 

Motcombe (Dorset), 19 

mottes, Norman, 219 

Mottram, S. M., 4 

mounds, 204 

Mulbarton (Norfolk), 227 
Mulgrave, Lord, 108 

Munster (Ireland), 180 

murder victims, 14, 15 

Museums Association, 5 

mycellia, fungal, 56, 61 
Mycetophagidae (beetles), 139 


nails, 13; Late Roman, 30; hobnails, 30 

Napper, Robert, 72 

National Biological Records Centre, 63, 92 

National Council of Social Services, 89 

National Council for Voluntary 
Organisations, 89 

National Mapping Programme, 149, 159 

National Monuments Record (NMR), 156, 
195, 204, 222 

National Rivers Authority, Wessex Regional 
Advisory Committee, 93 

National Schools, 47-53 

natural history, in Wiltshire, 89-97 

Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 89, 
90, 91, 92, 93; Invertebrate Site Register, 
137 

Nature Notes, 224 

necklaces, amber, 174 

Needham, S. P., 179, 180 

Nemi (Italy), 34 

Netherlands, The, 143 

Nettleton, 84; Sevington, 84; West Kington, 


84 

Neuenheilingen (Germany), 182 

Newall, Robert, 215 

Newbery, Peter, 92, 93, 95 

Newbury (West Berkshire), 89 

Newcastle, Marquess of, 19 

Newell, Peter, 89-90, 91, 92-3, 94 

New Forest (Hants), 67; beetles, 141; 
pottery, 9 

Newgrange (Ireland), 125, 170 

Newmarket (Suffolk), 99 

New Sarum see Salisbury 

Newton, Johanna, 143, 144 

Newton, Sir John, 143 

Newton, Joy, 95-6 

Newton, W., 125 

Newton Tony, 216 

Nicholas, Edward, 25 

Nicholas, Sir John, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24-5 

Nicholson, F., 115 

Nitidulidae (beetles), 139 

NMR (National Monuments Record), 156, 
195, 204, 222 

Norfolk see Broome Heath; Great Bircham; 
Little Cressingham; Mulbarton; Thetford 

Norman Conquest, 82 

Normans, 228 

Northamptonshire, 175 

North Bradley, 209, 210 

Northern England, 112, 167 

Northover, Peter, 181 

Northumberland, Duke of, 151 

Norton, 79; Bremilham, 83 

Norton Bavant, 179, 183, 185, 187, 225 

Norton Beauchamp (Somerset), 100, 104 

Norway maple, 43 

Norway spruce, 42 

Nunnaminster (Winchester, Hants), 80, 81 


OA (Oxford Archaeology), 229, 232 

Oak Apple Day, 21 

oaks, 41, 42, 43, 237 

OAU (Oxford Archaeological Unit), 229 

Odonata (dragonflies), 63-8 

Oedemeridae (beetles), 139 

Ogbourne, prior of, 71 

Oldfield, Eleanor, 101 

Old Minster (Winchester, Hants), 85 

Old Sarum, 24, 61 

Oleaceae (trees), 46 

Oliver, Jack, 141; paper on trees of 
Savernake Forest, 40-6 

Olwen, 227 

orb webs, 129, 133, 134 

Orcheston, Orcheston Down, 157 

Ordnance Survey, 196; Archaeological 
Division, 195, 197; creation, 122 

Orkney, 171, 177 

ornaments, ring-and-dot, 219 

Orthetrum coerulescens (Keeled Skimmer 
dragonfly), 67 

Orvieto (Italy), 34 

Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury, 80 

osteophytes, 12 

Oswald, 85 

Owlesbury (Hants), 32 

Oxenwood Field Studies Centre, 93, 94 

Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 35, 37, 181; 
Bodleian Library, 201; Christ Church, 47 

Oxford Archaeological Unit (OAU), 229 

Oxford Archaeology (OA), 229, 232-3 

Oxford Magazine, 119 

Oxfordshire see Abingdon; Barrow Hills; Big 
Rings; Dorchester-on-Thames; Farmoor 
Reservoir; Radley; Rollright Stones; 
Uffington; Yarnton 

oyster shells, 57 


Pachygnatha spp. (spiders), 133-4 
Pachygnatha clercki (spider), 133-4 
Pachygnatha degeeri (spider), 134 
Pachygnatha listeri (spider), 134 
palaeoenvironmental materials, Neolithic, 
59 
Palermo (Sicily), La Zisa palace, 51 
Palmer, S., 224 


INDEX 


Palmer, Stephen, The Microlepidoptera of 
Wiltshire (2001), 96 

Paradise, C. H., 35, 36, 37-8 

Paris (France), 35 

Parker, John, 121 

Parker, Stephen, 121 

Parks and Gardens Register, 151 

parochial development, late Saxon, 77-88 

paupers, illegal dwellings, 24 

Payne, Andrew, paper on stone circle at 
Winterbourne Bassett, 195—205 

Pediacus depressus (beetle), 141 

Pedunculate Oak see Quercus robur 
(English oak) 

Pemberton, Sir Francis, 105, 108 

Pembrokeshire, 102, see also St David’s 
Head 

pendants, 162-3, 171, 173, 174; amber, 180, 
183; gold-embellished, 175; jet, 177 

Pentridge (Dorset), 21 

periodontal disease, 12 

Perring, Frank, 92 

pestle-beads, 171-2 

Peterson, Rick, note on Thomas Twining, 
210-13 

Pewelle, Sir John de, 70, 71, 72, 73 

Pewsey: Blacknall Field, 4; Black Patch, 4; 
Jones’s Mill, 65 

Pewsey, Vale of, 210, 225 

Philip I, King of Spain, 143 

Phillips, Bernard, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 
237; note on figurine from Badbury, 208— 
10 

Philodromids (spiders), 130 

picturesque, 115-16, 126; aesthetics, 113— 
14 


Piggott, S., 111, 120 

pigs, bones, 58 

pillboxes, 159 

Pilton (Somerset), 100, 109 

Pinaceae (pines), 44—5 

pins: Early Roman, 28-30; bronze, 183, 184; 
European Tumulus Culture, 180; 
wooden, 28-30 

Pipe Office, 73 

Pirton Pools (Hereford and Worcester), 67 

pits, 230, 231; prehistoric, 235; Mesolithic, 
60; Neolithic, 54—62; Late Neolithic, 154; 
Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; 
Tron Age, 61; 7Roman, 231; Roman, 27, 
32; Early Roman, 30; Late Roman, 30; 
medieval, 31; post-medieval, 229; 
undated, 31; stone-filled, 236, see also 
cesspits; ditches; postholes 

Pitt, Jonathan, paper on Malmesbury Abbey, 

Pitton and Farley, Blackmoor Copse, 66 

Pitt-Rivers, Augustus Henry Lane Fox 
(1827-1900), 112 

Pitts, Mike, 188 

place-names, 227-8; Celtic, 228 

Planning Permission, 232, 234 

plant remains, 9, 59, 60, 237; charred, 28 

plaques: Belleville type, 172; gold, 172 

plaster of Paris, 190 

Platanaceae (plane trees), 45 

plates, gold, 171 

Platypodidae (beetles), 139 

Plenderleath, William, 239 

Pleydell-Bouverie, Constance Jane (née 
Nelson), 207 

Pleydell-Bouverie, Katherine, 207 

Pleydell-Bouverie, Nancy, 208 

Pl6ermel (Brittany), 228 

Plouvorn (Brittany), 180, 187 

poachers, 23-4 

Poland see Leki Male; Pommern 

pollarding, 41 

pollution, atmospheric, 137 

Polycleitos (sculptor), 226 

pommels, 179, 183; gold cap, 181; wooden, 
176 

Pommern (Poland), 182 

Pompeii (Italy), 118, 213 

Ponzardesland, 72 

poplars, 42 


porphyry, Egyptian, 36 

Portable Antiquities Scheme, 219 

Portchester (Hants), 79 

Portland (Dorset), 145 

portraits, 143-7 

Portugal, 179 

Portugal laurels, 43 

Portway, 55, 233 

positivism, 111 

postholes, 155, 201, 230, 231; prehistoric, 
235; Late Neolithic, 152, 154; Late 
Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, 229; Roman, 
27; post-medieval, 229; modern, 233; 
undated, 31, see also pits; stakeholes 

post-screens, 155 

pottery, 12; Neolithic, 56, 57-8; Late 
Neolithic, 152, 164; Beaker, 60, 161-94, 
230; Bronze Age, 230, 233, 236; Middle 
Bronze Age, 187; Late Bronze Age/Early 
Iron Age, 229; Iron Age, 230, 235: 
Roman, 7, 28, 230, 231, 236; Early 
Roman, 28, 30; Late Roman, 30, 31; 
Romano-British, 9, 208, 232, 236, 237; 
Anglo-Saxon, 230, 236; Saxon, 230, 233; 
medieval, 31, 231, 232, 236, 237; post- 
medieval, 232, 235, 236, 237; modern, 
28; Black Burnished ware, 30; 
coarsewares, 9, 208; Corded Ware, 164, 
170, 172; Deverel-Rimbury type, 187; 
Grooved Ware, 60, 61, 152, 164; Near 
Eastern, 50; New Forest ware, 9, 233; 
Peterborough ware, 57, 58, 60, 61, 152, 
165; Samian, 9; symbolism, 187, see also 
beakers; bowls; clay pipes; cups; kilns; 
tiles; urns 

Poulshot, 80 

Powel, J., 114 

Premnay (Aberdeenshire), 166, 167 

Preshute: Clatford, 195; Manton, 39; 
Manton Barrow, 170, 171, 185-6, 187, 
188 (beads, 174, 175; cups, 173, 177; 
halberd-pendants, 183) 

Price, John, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 

Primrose Trust, 208 

Princely Graves (Furstengraber), 181, 182, 
185 

Procraerus tibialis (beetle), 141 

Proudfoot, Edwina, 186 

Ptenidium turgidum (beetle), 141 

Ptiliidae (beetles), 138 

Ptinidae (beetles), 139 

punishments, 15 

Purton, 81, 85; church, 79 

pussy willows, 41 

putty, in restoration work, 163-4, 189-90 

Pyrochroidae (beetles), 139 

Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Large Red 
damselfly), 65 


QPC Construction, 234 

Quakers, 235; chapels, 232 

quarries: pits, 232; stone, 230 

Quarterly Review, 122-3 

Queen Oak, 41 

Quercus cerris (Turkey oak), 43 

Quercus coccinea (American scarlet oak), 
42 

Quercus petraea (sessile oak), 41 

Quercus robur (English oak), 41 

Quercus robur var. cristata (Savernake 
cluster oak), 41 

Quinta da Agua Branca, Viana de Castello 
(Portugal), 179 


radiocarbon dating, 152, 178, 185; Beaker 
artifacts, 172; Silbury Hill, 230; timber, 
12; Wessex Series, 172 

Radley (Oxon), 174, 180, 182, 187; Barrow 
Hills, 186 

RAF (Royal Air Force), 159 

railways, disused, 215 

Raleigh, Sir Carew, 19, 23 

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 19 

Ralf ‘the Staller’, 227 

Ramsbury, Manor, 214 

rape seed, 22 


247 


Rattlebone, 80 

Rawlings, Antoinnette, note on Darby and 
Joan seed picture, 207-8 

Rayment, Jeanne, 92 

Rayner, John, 96 

RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force), 159 

RCHME (Royal Commission on the 
Historical Monuments of England), 55, 
60, 220, 221 

Reading University, 1 

Rebecca, Marchioness of Worcester, 110 

Recording Wiltshire’s Biodiversity (1997—), 
96 

Redlynch, Loosehanger, 20, 21, 22 

Redon, Cartulary of, 227 

Reis, John (ed.), work reviewed, 239 

Reiss, R. H., 222 

rents, collection, 20 

Report of the Marlborough College Natural 
History Society, 139 

resistivity surveys, 197-201, 205 

Rhamnaceae, 46 

Rhizophagidae (beetles), 139 

Rhone, River, 113 

Richardson, E. A., 34, 35 

Richborough (Kent), 209 

ridge and furrow, 233 

Rigby, V., 35, 39 

Ringwood (Hants), 20 

Ripon (North Yorkshire), 2 

rivers, importance of, 14, 16 

rivet-caps, 174 

rivet-pins, 179, 180 

roads, 55, 57; Roman, 28, 233, see also 
trackways 

Robinson, David, paper on Sir Richard Colt 
Hoare, 111-28 , 

Robinson, John, 20 

Robinson, Paul, 1, 4, 218; note on Beaker 
presence at Wilsford 7, 161—3; note on 
early dog collars, 213-14; paper on 
figurines from Avebury, 33-9 

Rochester (Kent), 224 

Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, 80 

Rogers, Edward, 146 

Rogers, Kenneth: note on early dog collars, 
213-14; review by, 239 

Rollright Stones (Oxon), 125 

Roman Conquest, 211 

roof-trusses, modified, 220-2 

Roquette, Jim, 224 

Rosaceae (roses and fruit trees), 45—6 

Rose, F., 137 

Rossi, Joe, 208 

Roundway, 176, 178 

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712-78), 113 

rowan trees, 41 

Rowlritch [Rollright] (Oxon), 125 

Royal Academy of Arts, 48 

Royal Agricultural Society, 225 

Royal Air Force (RAF), 159 

Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), 159 

Royal Commission on the Historical 
Monuments of England (RCHME), 55, 
60, 220, 221 

Royal Corps of Signals, 1 

Royal Institute of British Architects, 47 

Royal School of Artillery, 233 

Royal Scots Greys, 1 

Royal Society, 100 

rubbish pits see middens 

Rumex spp. (dock), seeds, 60 

Russell, D., 224 

Russell, Debbie, 224 

Russell, Gabriel (d. 1663), 19 

Russell, William, 103 

Russell family, 19 


sacrifices, 13, 15 

St Albans (Herts), Verulamium, 2 

St David’s Head (Pembrokeshire), 125 

St Fiacre, Morbihan (France), 178, 180 

St Joseph, J. K., 151, 152 

St Martin, 82 

St Paul Malmesbury Without: Corston, 78, 
79, 83; Rodbourne, 78, 83; St Peter and 


248 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


St Paul’s Church, 78-9 

St Wandrille (France), 80 

Salicaceae (poplars and willows), 45 

Salisbury, bishops of, 72, 74 

Salisbury, earls of, 7, 19, 20, 21, 23 

Salisbury, 20, 21, 101; Anchor Brewery Site 
(former), 235; Balle’s Place, 221; Bishop’s 
Walk, 235; Bishop Wordsworth’s School, 
235; Castle Street, 221; The Close, 220- 
2, 235; diocese of, 71; Gigant Street, 235; 
inhumations, 12—13; manorial stewards, 
19; market, 23; Members of Parliament, 
47; Neolithic pits, 54-62; Philips Lane, 
55, 56; Quidhampton Quarry, 235; St 
Ann Street, 235; water meadows, 65, see 
also Old Sarum 

Salisbury Assizes, 21 

Salisbury Cathedral, chantry, 69 

Salisbury Collections, 91 

Salisbury District Council, 7; Director of 
Housing and Health, 16 

Salisbury Journal, 49-50 

Salisbury Museum, 2, 4, 55 

Salisbury Natural History Society, 93 

Salisbury Plain, 96, 156, 159; boundaries, 
158; field systems, 156-7 

Salisbury Plain Training Area (SPTA), 157, 
222-4; ‘C’ Crossing, 235; Robin Hood’s 
Ball, 236; Silver Barrow, 236 

Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum, 90, 
92, 220; dog collars, 213-14; figurine, 
225 

Salpingidae (beetles), 139 

sandals, Abyssinian, 38 

Sandell, Richard E., 4—5, 90, 92 

Sandell Trust, 91 

Saproxylic Quality Index (SQD, 137, 138, 
140, 141 

saproxylic status, of Savernake Forest, 137— 
42 

sarsen stones, 187, 196, 199, 201, 204, 234; 
burnt, 236 

Savernake, 110; Tottenham, 100, 109; 
Tottenham Park, 43-6, 104, 110; variant 
names, 41 

Savernake cluster oak (Quercus robur var. 
cristata), 41 

Savernake Forest, 100; Arboretum, 41, 43, 
46; Charcoal Burners Road, 42; forestry 
plantations, 42; kilns, 4; saproxylic status, 
137-42; spiders, 132; as SSSI, 41; trees, 
40-6 

Sawser, Alice, 72 

Saxo-Thuringia (Germany), 180 

scabbards, 178, 180, 183 

Scagell, R., 224 

Scaphidiidae (beetles), 138 

SCDA (Steam Cultivation Development 
Association), 224-5 

Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 237 

Scheduled Monuments Register, 217, 231, 
236 

Schmorl’s nodes, 12 

Schnapp, A., 111 

schools: architecture, 47—53; gothic style, 50; 
Wiltshire, 151 

Scintrex CS2 (sensors), 198-9 

Scolytidae (beetles), 139 

Scotland: axes, 187; beakers, 166; bog 
bodies, 14; dog collars, 214; military 
campaigns, 122—3; spiders, 131, 134, see 
also Aberdeen; Barnhill; Culduthel 
Mains; Keabog; Lanark Moor; Law Hill; 
Lesmurdie; Migdale; Premnay 

Scots pine, 42 

Scott, James, Duke of Monmouth and 
Buccleuch (1649-85), 105 

Scott-White, Sally, 92, 96 

scrapers, Neolithic, 57, 58 

Scraptiidae (beetles), 139 

sculpture, Romano-British, 226 

Second World War, airfields, 159 

seed pictures, 207-8 

seeds, 60 

Seend, glow-worms, 224 

Selden, John, 100 


Self, Isaac, 235 

Serapis (god), 35, 36 

sessile oak, 41 

settlements: Late Neolithic, 217; Bronze 
Age, 217; Iron Age, 217; Early Iron Age, 
229; Roman, 31—2, 217; Romano-British, 
159; medieval, 156, 236; post-medieval, 
156, see also castles; enclosures; towns; 
villages 

Sevilla (Spain), 170 

Seymour, Alfred, 47, 48-50, 52 

Seymour, Charles, 2nd Baron Seymour of 
Trowbridge (d. 1665), 100 

Seymour, Sir Edward, 108 

Seymour, Frances, Countess of 
Southampton, 100-1, 102, 104 

Seymour, Frances, Marchioness of 
Hertford, 99, 100 

Seymour, Francis, 5th Duke of Somerset 
(1657-1678), 100, 101, 102 

Seymour, Henry, 47 

Seymour, Henry, Lord Beauchamp (d. 
1654), 99 

Seymour, Isabella, 49 

Seymour, Jane, Queen, 47, 100 

Seymour, John, 4th Duke of Somerset (d. 
1675), 100-1, 102 

Seymour, Lord, of Sudeley, 144 

Seymour, William, Ist Marquis and 2nd Earl 
of Hertford and 2nd Duke of Somerset 
(1588-1660), 99 

Seymour, William, 3rd Duke of Somerset 
(d. 1671), 98, 99, 100 

Seymour estates, 98-110 

Sezincote (Gloucestershire), 50 

Shaftesbury, Earl of, 21 

Shaftesbury (Dorset), 20, 21, 24—5; Abbey, 
78, 85, 206; schools, 47-8 

Shakespeare, William, 5 

Shalbourne, 104; Eastcourt, 100; 
Shalbourne Wood, 100; Westcourt, 100 

shale objects, 162, 171; gold-covered, 174 

Shaw, Alexander, 237 

Shaw, Derek, 237 

Shepherd, A. N., 170 

Shepton Beauchamp (Somerset), 100 

Sherborne (Dorset), Tinney’s Lane, 13 

Sherfield, Henry, 19, 21—2 

Sherfield, Richard, 19, 21-2, 23 

Sheridan, Alison, 174 

Sherratt, A., 14 

Sherston, 80; Easton Town, 80; Little 
Sherston, 80; Wick, 80; Willesley, 80 

Shorncote (Gloucestershire), 100 

Shrewton, 170, 171, 176, 178; Crescent 
Copse, 58, 177; Robin Hood’s Ball, 236; 
Rollestone, 60 

Shropshire, 49; flora, 95, see also Ludlow 

Sicily, 51 

Silvanidae (beetles), 139 

silver birches, 41 

silver objects, 178, 218 

Simpson, Derek D. A., 4 

Singen (Germany), 175, 179 

Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), 156, 
215,220 

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs): 
Landford Heath, 66, 67; legislation, 94; 
Savernake Forest, 41; Westbury, 93 

Skinner, John, 124 

slate, 60 

Slocombe, Ivor, 224 

sloes, 41 

slugs, 60 

Smiles, S., 124 

Smith, A. C., 196-7, 200, 201, 204 

Smith, Isobel, 2 

Smith, J., 114 

Smith, Margaret, 4 

SMR (Sites and Monuments Record), 156, 
215.220) 

Snell, Patricia, 214 

Snow, John, 19-25 

Snow, Leonard, 19, 20, 21 

Society of Antiquaries, 119, 120 

Society of Antiquaries of London, 5 


Somerset, Anne, 100 

Somerset, Charles (1661-98), 100, 102, 
105, 106, 107 

Somerset, Edward, 6th Earl and 2nd 
Marquis of Worcester and titular Earl of 
Glamorgan (1601-67), 99 

Somerset, Henrietta, 100 

Somerset, Henry, Ist Duke of Beaufort 
(1629-1700), 98-9, 101-2, 103, 104, 
105, 107, 109 

Somerset, Henry, 2nd Duke of Beaufort 
(1684-1714), 110 

Somerset, Mary, Ist Duchess of Beaufort 
(1630-1715), 98-110 

Somerset, Mary (d. 1733), 100 

Somerset, 20, 66, 69, 102, 104; manors, 20; 
spiders, 132, see also Buckland Dinham; 
Camely; Castle Cary; Chillington; 
Congresbury; Glastonbury Abbey; 
Godney; Hatch Beauchamp; IIminster; 
Lamyatt Beacon; Martock; Meare; 
Norton Beauchamp; Pilton; Shepton 
Beauchamp; Stanton Drew; Stoney 
Littleton 

Somerset Levels, 65 

Soper, William, 72 

Soppitt, James, 48 

sorghum, 208 

Southampton (Hants): Hamwic, 218, 219; 
mint, 218; University, 206 

Southern Electric, 230 

spacer-plates, 180, 182, 183 

Spain, 170 

Spanish Armada (1588), 145 

Spanish chestnuts, 42, 43, 46 

Spanish Meseta, 177 

Spanish Netherlands, 110 

spearheads, Anglo-Saxon, 233 

species diversity, 60 

Species Quality Score (SQS), 138 

Sphindidae (beetles), 139 

spiders, 129-36 

spiked bit rollers, bronze, 38 

spindle trees, 41 

Spitfires (aircraft), 159 

springs, 237 

SPTA see Salisbury Plain Training Area 
(SPTA) 

SQI (Saproxylic Quality Index), 137, 138, 
140, 141 

SQS (Species Quality Score), 138 

SSSIs see Sites of Special Scientific Interest 
(SSSIs) 

Stafford, Pauline A., 85 

Staffordshire, 163 

stakeholes, 230, see also postholes 

Stalbridge (Dorset), 20, 48 

Stanton Drew (Bath and North East 
Somerset), 125, 197 

Stanton St Quentin, 85 

Staphylinidae (rove beetles), 138 

Staphylinoidea (beetles), 141 

Stapleford, 100; Stapleford Down, 157 

Staple Hundred, 81, 82 

Startley Hundred, 79, 83, 84 

Steam Cultivation Development Association 
(SCDA), 224-5 

steam ploughing, 224—5 

steam threshing, 225 

steelyards, Roman, 36 

Steeple Ashton, 239; Green Lane Wood, 132 

Steeple Langford, Grovely Castle, 112, 123 

St-Etienne, 80 

stewards (manorial) see manorial stewards 

Stillingfleet, Samuel, 19, 23 

stone circles, 125, 210; Chiseldon, 222; 
Winterbourne Bassett, 195-205 

Stonehenge, 7, 55, 61, 101, 122; axe 
carvings, 187; barrows, 169, 170, 172, 
183, 186-8; beakers, 170; cemeteries, 
161, 215, 217; cursus, 125; Hoare on, 
116; pits, 60; postholes, 155; pottery, 177; 
Stonehenge Bottom, 14; surveys, 123; 
views, 116-17; visitor centre, 155, see also 
Amesbury 

Stonehenge World Heritage Site, 149, 233; 


INDEX 


mapping project, 155-9 

stone objects, 163, 181 

stones: buried, 200-1; burnt, 60; flaked, 57, 
58, see also sarsen stones 

stone surfaces, medieval, 236 

stonework: Anglo-Saxon, 206, see also 
flintwork; sculpture 

Stoney Littleton (Bath and North East 
Somerset), 124 

Stourton, Edward, 145 

Stourton, Frances (née Brooke), Lady 
Stourton, 143, 145, 146 

Stourton, John, Baron Stourton (d. 1588), 
143-7 

Stourton with Gasper, 143, 145; Stourhead, 
41, 46, 66 (Douglas at, 120; and Hoare, 
114-15, 116, 118, 122; library, 124); 
Stourhead House, 163 

strangulations, 14 

Stratton, Arthur, 224—5 

Studfold Hundred, 80, 81 

Stukeley, William, 115, 125, 195, 197, 212, 
213; Abury (1743), 196, 210; 
illustrations, 201-4; on Twining, 210 

Stumpe, William, 238 

Suffolk, 99 

suicide victims, 15 

Supermarine TS409 (aircraft), 159 

Surrey: dragonflies, 63, see also Guildford 
Museum; Kempton Park 

surveys, 235, 236; aerial photography, 148— 
60; Hoare’s, 122-4, 126 

Sutton Benger, 79, 83; Draycot Cerne, 239 

Sutton Veny, Pit Meads, 118-19 

Swaddling, J. T., 35, 39 

Swallowcliffe, 13, 22 

Swanage (Dorset), 13 

swans, 20 

sweet chestnut trees, 42, 43, 46 

S.W. Farmer & Co., 225 

Swindall, Alan, 93 

Swindon, 79, 219; Coate Water, 63; Great 
Western Hospital, 236; Old Town, High 
Street, 236, see also Lechlade 

Swindon Archaeological Society, 208 

Switzerland see Lake Zurich 

sycamores, 43 

Sylvester and Mackett, 214 

symbolism, in pottery, 187 

Symondsbury (Dorset), 99 

Sympetrum danae (Black Darter dragonfly), 
67 

Sympetrum fonscolombii (Red-veined 
Darter dragonfly), 67-8 


tabula rasa, 114 

Tachinus bipustulatus (beetle), 139 

Tacitus, 15; Annales, 14 

tanneries, 232-3 

Tanwedou (Brittany), 179 

‘Taxaceae (yews), 45 

Taxatio (1291), 82 

Taxodiaceae (conifers), 45 

Taylor, H. M., 206 

Taylor, Kay S., reviews by, 238-9 

Taylour, William le, 73 

teeth: animals, 58; cattle, 58 

temples, Romano-British, 226 

Tenebrionidae (sawflies), 139 

Tertullian (c.160-c.220), 212 

tessellation, Roman, 231 

Tetragnatha spp. (spiders), 129-33 

Tetragnatha extensa (spider), 130, 132 

Tetragnatha montana (spider), 131 

Tetragnatha nigrita (spider), 131 

Tetragnatha obtusa (spider), 131-2 

Tetragnatha pinicola (spider), 132 

Tetragnatha striata (spider), 130, 132-3 

Tetragnathidae (spiders), in Wiltshire, 129— 
36 

Tetratomidae (sawflies), 139 

textile industry, 151 

textiles, 178 

Thames, River, 13 

Thames Valley, 186 

Thames Water Utilities, 27, 230 


Theridiosoma gemmosum (spider), 129 

Theridiosomatidae (spiders), 129 

Thetford (Norfolk), 224 

Thomas, Nicholas, paper on Frederick 
Kenneth Annable, 1—6 

Thompson, M.W., 115 

Thornborough Circles (North Yorkshire), 2 

Thorngrove Hundred, 79, 83, 84 

Thurnam, John, 163 

Thynne, Sir James, 19 : 

Thynne, Sir John, junior (1555-1604), 143— 
7 


Thynne, Thomas, 100 

Thynne, Thomas, 1st Viscount Weymouth, 
144 

Thynne, William, 19 

Thynne family, 144 

Tihel de Helléan, 228 

tiles: Roman, 28; Romano-British, 208; 
Iznik, 50; Syrian, 50 

Tiliaceae (limes), 45 

Till, River, 156 

Tilshead, Silver Barrow, 236 

Tilshead Westdown Camp, 236 

timber: in buildings, 220-1; 
dendrochronology, 12; worked, 9-12 

timber circles, 155 

Timescape Wiltshire (2001), 151 

Tisbury, 21; Castle Ditches, 22; church, 77; 
schools, 47-8; Wardour, 19, 21 

Tithe Award maps, 201, 202 

Titus, 211 

Todi (Italy), 35 

Toggye, George, 76 

Tolpuddle Ball (Dorset), 13 

Tomalin, David, 182 

tools, Neolithic, 57 

torcs, 37, 175 

Tormarton (South Gloucestershire), 19 

towns, Roman, 26-32 

Towthorpe (East Riding of Yorkshire), 170, 
181, 182 

trackways, 159; ?>Roman, 231, 233; medieval, 
236; 19th century, 237 

tractors, 225 

Transco Gas, 231, 233 

trees: exotics, 43; millennium planting, 236; 
native species, 41—2; naturalized species, 
42-3; Savernake Forest, 40-6; species list, 
43-6 

treethrows, 235 

Trowbridge, 46, 214; Castle Street, 214; 
Silver Street Presbyterian Church, 214 

Trowbridge Museum, 214 

Trust for Wessex Archaeology, 152 

Tucker, Donald, 93 

tumuli see barrows 

Turkey, 50 

Turms (god), 35 

Twickenham (Greater London), 20, 24 

Twining, Thomas (1668-1739), 210-13 

Tyler, John, 224 


Ucko, P. J., 210 

Uffington (Oxon), 35 

Uley (Gloucestershire), 226 

Ulmaceae (elms), 45 

Uloboridae (spiders), 129 

Uloborus plumipes (spider), 129 

Ulwell (Dorset), 13 

Unetician culture, graves, 182 

United Milk Dairy, 237 

United Reform Church, 229-30 

Upavon: Casterley Camp, 159; disc-brooch, 
218-19 

Upton Lovell, 171, 179, 183; barrows, 170, 
177, 180, 185, 187, 188; Beaker objects, 
172-4 

Urchfont, 81, 92; Oakfrith Wood, 236 

urns, 186; biconical, 182, 183; collared, 162, 
L63=705%5 devi, 1825) N8S5. ah85 
(conservation, 161, 189-90); horseshoe 
handles, 183; whipped cord decorations, 
165 


Vainker, Shelagh, 37 


Valor Ecclesiasticus (1535), 74 

vases: Greek, 38; Irish funerary, 165 

Vatcher, Faith de M., 152 

Vaughan, Mr, 21 

Verona (Italy), 35 

Verulamium (Herts), 2 

Vespasian, 210 

vestal virgins, 35, 36 

Vesuvius, Mount (Italy), 118 

Victoria, Queen, 239 

Victoria County History of Berkshire, 74 

Victoria County History of Wiltshire, 219, 
238 

viereckschanze (rectilinear enclosure), 154— 
5 Fig. 8, 159 

villages: medieval, 7, 236; deserted, 7; 
surveys, 123 

villas: Roman, 27, 154—5 Fig. 8, 159, 231; 
Romano-British, 208, 209 

Vulcan figurine, 209 


waggon ruts, 57 

Wales, 99, 112, 118, 125; Marches of, 100, 
see also Anglesey; Carn Madryn; 
Gwynedd; Llanbleddian; Pembrokeshire 

walls: Iron Age, 238; Roman, 27-8; Anglo- 
Saxon, 206; medieval, 232, 233, 235; 
post-medieval, 231; 19th century, 237; 
chalk, 230 

Walpole, Horace, 4th Earl of Orford (1717— 
97), 119, 120 

Walter, Bishop, 79 

Wanborough: Calley Arms, 236; Half Moon 
Plantation, 236 

WANHM see Wiltshire Archaeological and 
Natural History Magazine (WANHM) 

WANHS see Wiltshire Archaeological and 
Natural History Society (WANHS) 

Wansdyke, 211 

Warminster, 228 

Warnewell, John, 74 

Warren Farm Great Beech, 42 

Wash, 170 

waste disposal, 89 

water authorities, 93 

water meadows, 7—18, 156; post-medieval, 
154—5 Fig. 8; creation, 22—3; dragonfly 
habitats, 65, 67 

water pumps, medieval, 229 

Watts, G. F., 49 

WBS (Wiltshire Botanical Society), 96 

Webber, Geoffrey, 90 

Wedgwood (pottery), 163 

Weld, Humphrey, 23 

Weld, Lady, 21 

Wellesley Pole, William, 239 

wellingtonias, 43 

wells, Early Roman, 30 

Wessex, 61, 83; and Brittany, 228; 
enclosures, 158; field systems, 156-7; 
inhumations, 13 

Wessex Archaeology, 152, 215, 236; 
evaluations, 231—2, 233, 235; excavations 
(Mildenhall, 27; Wilsford cum Lake, 7— 
18); 
observations, 230; watching briefs, 235 

Wessex Water, 233 

West Africa, 1 

West Ashton: Manor Farm, 236; Rood 
Ashton, 239 

Westbury: Biss Brook, 237; Northacre 
Business Park, 237; SSSI, 93; White 
Horse, 148, 151 

Westbury Naturalists, 90 

West Dean, Bentley Wood, 100, 104, 224 

western hemlock-spruce, 42 

western red cedars, 43 

West Heslerton (North Yorkshire), 165 

West Lavington, 90; dragonflies, 63 

Westminster, 2nd Marquess of, 48 

West Overton, 177; Lockeridge, 187 

wetlands, conservation, 93 

Wetlands Symposia, 89, 93 

Weyhill (Hants), 20 

Weymouth (Dorset), 145; barrows, 177, 
181, 183, 185, 186, 187 


250 THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE 


Wheeler, Sir (Robert Eric) Mortimer, 2 

whetstone-pendants, 183, 184 

whitebeams, 41 

white horses, 148, 151, 239 

White, Raymond, 190 

Whitespots (County Down), 180 

Whittle, Alasdair, 151, 152, 153, 155 

WHM « see Wiltshire Heritage Museum 
(WHM) 

WHSs (World Heritage Sites), 149 

Willerby (North Yorkshire), 181 

William I, King, 80, 227 

William II, King, 105, 106, 109 

William, Sir Ifor, 227 

Wilsford cum Lake, 210; barrows, 7, 161— 
94; Druid’s Lodge, 154-5 Fig. 11, 158; 
Lake, 7-18; Lake Bottom, 7, 14; Lake 
Down, 7, 117, 156, 157, 158; medieval 
settlement, 156; Normanton Down, 161, 
169, 170, 172, 183, 186-8; Normanton 
Gorse, 170, 172, 186-8; North Kite, 186; 
Rox Hill, 7; Spring Bottom, 14 

Wilson, Mr, 208 

Wilton, 20, 78, 85; St Mary and St 
Nicholas’s Church, 237; West Street, 237 

Wiltshire: manors, 19, 20, 23; maps, 122-3; 
natural history in, 89-97; Odonata 
(dragonflies), 63—8; schools, 151; spiders 
in, 129-36; Tetragnathidae (spiders), 
129-36 

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 
History Magazine (WANHM), 2, 222; 
natural history in, 89 

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 
History Society (WANHS), 90, 91, 161, 
163; library, 33, 162; Natural History 
Section, 89, 90, 91, 96 

Wiltshire Association for Environmental 
Education, 94 

Wiltshire Botanical Society (WBS), 96 

Wiltshire County Council, 4, 92, 93, 95, 238; 
Archaeological Service, 7,55, 151; Con- 
servation Centre, 161, 189; County Arch- 
ives, 46; Education Department, 90, 93; 
Library and Museums Department, 90 

Wiltshire County Education Authority, 90 

Wiltshire Flora Mapping Project, 89, 92, 95, 
96 

Wiltshire Flying Club, 159 

Wiltshire Geld Roll, 79 

Wiltshire Heritage Museum (WHM), 91, 
236; Assistant Curators, 4; Bronze Age 
gallery, 189; collections, 4, 161, 163; 


Curators, 1, 2; Curator’s Report, 4; 
development (1952-86), 2—3; dog collars, 
214; Museum of the Year (1984), 5; 
Stourhead Collection, 163 

Wiltshire Library and Museum Service, 91, 
92 

Wiltshire Museums Council, 90 

Wiltshire Natural History Bulletin, 96 

Wiltshire Natural History Forum (1974— 
2002), 89-97 

Wiltshire Natural History Publications 
Trust, 96 

Wiltshire Ornithological Society, 96 

Wiltshire Regiment, 2 

Wiltshire Society see Wiltshire 
Archaeological and Natural History 
Society (WANHS) 

Wiltshire and Swindon Biological Records 
Centre (WSBRC), 63, 68 

Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, 98, 
219 

Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation 
(WTNC), 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95 

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT), 65, 66, 92; 
establishment, 89 

Wimbourne St Giles (Dorset), 21 

Winchelsea, Lord, 210 

Winchester, Bishop of, 19, 20, 24 

Winchester (Hants), 78, 85; Lankhills 
Roman Cemetery, 32; Nunnaminster, 80, 
81; Old Minster, 85 

windows, Byzantine, 50 

Windsor, deans of, 72 

Winterbourne: Cusse’s Gorse, 154—5 Fig. 
Qo; 157, W593 (Haigh Post; 159; 
Winterbourne Dauntsey, 159; 
Winterbourne’ Earls, 19, 22; 
Winterbourne Gunner, 13, 60, 157 

Winterbourne Bassett: Lambourne Ground, 
197, 201; Rabson Manor, 196; Rabson 
West Field, 202; St Katherine and St 
Peter’s Church, 196; Stanmoor, 201; 
stone circle, 195-205; Upper Oxleaze, 
195, 196, 197, 204; Winterbourne West 
Field, 204 

Winterbourne Monkton, 201; Hackpen 
Hill, 123; Monkton Down, 37 

Winterbourne St Martin (Dorset), 171, 174, 
179, 180-1, 183, 187; Clandon Barrow, 
170; inhumations, 186-7 

Winterbourne Stoke, 177; barrows, 123, 
124, 179, 183, 185, 187 (Cross Roads 
Group, 186, 217) 


Winter, Dominic, 219 

Winton, Helen, paper on aerial photography, 
148-60 

woad, 22 

women, inhumations, 185-6 

wooden objects, 176, 178 

Woodford, 8; Heale Hill, 154—5 Fig. 8, 156, 
157, 158, 159; Smithen Down, 154-5 
Fig. 8; Woodford Down, 154—5 Fig. 8 

Woodforde, S., 121, 122 

Woodford Valley, 7-18 

woodland: management, 22; sites, 140 

Woodward, A. B., 217 

Woodward, P. J., 217 

woolstores, 235 

Wootton Bassett, Red Lodge, 237 

Worcester (Hereford and Worcester), 67 

Workers’ Educational Association, 90 

World Heritage Sites (WHSs), 149 

World War J, steam ploughing, 224—5 

World War II, airfields, 159 

wristguards, 178, 186; gold-covered, 179; 
stone, 176 

WSBRC (Wiltshire and Swindon Biological 
Records Centre), 63, 68 

WTNC (Wiltshire Trust for Nature 
Conservation), 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95 

Wulfran, 15 

Wulfric, 84 

Wulfstan, 86 

Wurttemberg (Germany), 175, 179 

WWT see Wiltshire Wildlife Trust (WWT) 

Wyche, Benjamin, 24 

wych elms, 41 

Wylye, River, 133, 156 

Wylye Valley, 112, 113, 170, 225 

Wyndham, H. P., 121 

Wyndham, Percy, 48 


Yarnton (Oxon), 60, 61 

Yatton Keynell, 79 

yew trees, 41, 131 

Yorke, Barbara A. E., 85, 86 

Yorkshire, 109, 110, 227-8, see also Cantley 
Estate; Croft; Dewsbury; Doncaster; 
Driffield; Garton Slack; Jolby; Leeds; 
Ripon; Thornborough Circles; 
Towthorpe; West Heslerton; Willerby 


Zeuner, Frederick, 2 

Zurich-Mozartstrasse (Switzerland), 174, 
180, 182, 187 

Zygoptera (damselflies), 64—5 


Publications of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 


History Society 


Recent and some earlier issues of the Magazine may be purchased from the Society. Volumes 93-95 are available at £15 per 
copy. For details of earlier volumes apply to the Curator. Other WA&NHS publications may also be purchased, as follows: 


Annable, F.K., and Simpson, D.D.A., Guide catalogue of the Neolithic and Bronze Age collections in Devizes 
Museum, [viii] 133pp, plates, casebound, 1964 (reprinted), £15.00 (+ £3 p&p) 


Dillon, Patrick (ed.), Mammals in Wiltshire, xii, 156pp, paperback, 1997, £7.50 (+ £1.50 p&p) 


Ellis, Peter (ed.), Ludgershall Castle: excavations by Peter Addyman 1964-1972, ix, 268pp, ill, A4 paperback, 2000 
(WANHS Monograph Series 2), £19.95 (+ £4.50 p&p) 


Ellis, Peter (ed.), Roman Wiltshire and after: papers in honour of Ken Annable, xii, 240pp, ill, casebound, 2001, 


£19.95 (+ £4.50 p&p) 


Haycock, Lorna, Devizes in the Civil War, 24pp, ill, paperback, 2000, £2.95 (+ £1.00 p&p) 


During 2003 the Society plans to publish volumes on art in Wiltshire; a volume of essays to mark the 150th anniversary 
of its foundation; and in its Monograph Series a report on barrow cemetery excavations at Snail Down, 1953-7. 


WILTSHIRE HERITAGE 


MUSEUM 
GALLERY 
« LIBRARY 


Published by - © 
The Wiltshire Archaeological 
and Natural History Society 


ISSN Seasons)